v-^ 


BX  9947 

.EA 

1825 

Empie, 

Adam 

,  1785- 

-1860. 

Remarks 

on 

the 

distin 

guis 

hing  doctrine 

of 

wmmm 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2009  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/remarksondistingOOempi 


REMARKS 

ON   THE  ' 

J 

DISTINGUISHING  DOCT^mE..,^,,,  ^  .^,^vj 

OP 
WHICH  TEACHES  THAT  THERE  IS 

NO  HELL  AND  NO  PUNISHMENT 

FOn    THE 

WICKED    AFTER    DEATH. 


V 
BY  ADAM  EMPIE,  A.  M. 

Rector  of  St.  James's  Church,  Wilmington,  North-Carolins. 


A  little  learning  is  a  davgeroua  thing. 
Drink  deep,  or  taste  7iot Pope. 

/  am  set  for  the  defence  of  the  Gospel. — Though  we,  or  an  Angel  from 
heaven,  preach  any  other  Gospel,  let  him  be  accursed.       St.  Paul, 


J\rEW-YORKr 

PRINTED  BY  T.  AND  J.  SWORDS, 

*No.  99  Pearl-street. 

1825. 


^  ♦% 


Southern  District  of  J\l'ew-Yorky  ss. 

r'  ^  Tl^^  '"^  remembered,  that  on  the  third  day  of  June,  A.  D.  1825,  in 
c  ,  \  -'-'  the  49th  year  of  the  Independence  of  the  United  States  of  Amer 
j  rica,  T.  &  J  Swords,  of  the  said  District,  have  deposited  in  this  Office 
^  ./  the  title  of  a  book,  the  right  whereof  they  claim  as  Proprietors,  in  the 
■words  following,  to  wit : 
*'  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of  Modern  Universalism,  -tehich 
teaches  that  there  is  no  Hell  and  no  Pu7iish7nent  for  the  Wicked  after  Death. 
By  Adam  Empie,  A.  M.  Rector  of  St.  Jameses  Churchy  Wilmington,  JVorth- 
Carolina. 

A  little  learning  is  a  dangerous  thing. 

Drink  deep,  or  taste  not Pope. 

/  am  set  for  the  defence  of  the  Gospel—Though  we,  or  an  Angel  from  hea- 
ven, preach  any  other  Gospel,  let  him  be  accursed.        St.  Paul." 

In  conformity  to  the  Act  of  Congress  of  the  United  States,  entitled  "  An  Act 
for  the  Encouragement  of  Learning,  by  securing  the  Copies  of  Maps,  Charts,  and 
Books,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprietors  of  such  Copies,  during  the  time  therein 
mentioned."  And  also  to  au  Act,  entitled  "  An  Act,  supplementary  to  an  Act, 
entitled  An  Act  for  the  Encouragement  of  Learning,  by  securing  the  Copies  of 
Maps,  Charts,  and  Books,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprietors  of  such  Copies,  during 
the  times  therein  mentioned,  and  extending  the  Benefits  thereof  to  the  Arts  of 
Pesignine,  Engraving,  aud  Etching  Historical  and  other  Prints." 

JAMES  DILL, 
Cleric  of  the  Southern  District  of  JVevi-York. 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 


Singe  the  doctrine  of  universal  salvation  has  been  publicly 
proclaimed^  and  excited  so  much  interest  and  attention  in  our 
tovs^n,  I  have  been  naturally  led  (o  inquire,  whether  it  is  my 
dull/  to  publish  any  thing  on  the  subject.  The  following  con- 
siderations have  influenced  my  opinion  and  n:jy  conduct. 

Every  minister  of  the  Gospel  is  in  duty  boundy  not  only  to 
preach  the  truth,  but  also  to  defend  it.  For  this  is  an  essen- 
tial part  of  the  ministerial  office.  The  Apostle  Paul  says, 
he  was  "  set  (appointed)  for  the  defence  of  the  Gospel  :'*a  so 
is  every  minister  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

Nor  are  his  obligations  circumscribed  within  the  duties  of 
preaching  and  defending  the  truth.  As  our  civil  rulers  are 
bound  to  take  care  that  the  commonwealth  sustain  no  injury, 
but  that  its  best  interests  be  promoted — as  the  shepherd 
must  not  only  feed  his  flock,  but  protect  them  from  harm — so 
are  ministers  bound  by  laws  human  and  divine  to  endeavour, 
by  all  the  means  in  their  power,  to  prevent  the  progress  and 
the  existence  of  error,  to  discountenance  every  species  of  sin, 
and  to  promote  the  interests  of  revealed  truth  and  godliness, 
in  order  thereby  to  promote  the  salvation  of  souls.  They  are 
laid  indeed  under  an  awfid  responsibility  ;  and  their  induce- 
ment for  faithfulness,  in  the  discharge  of  their  various  duties, 
is  almost  overpowering.  "  Son  of  man,"  says  God  to  his  pro- 
phet, "  I  have  made  thee  a  watchman  unto  the  house  of 
"  Israel :  therefore  hear  the  word  at  my  mouth,  and  give 
"  them  warning  from  me.  When  I  say  unto  the  wicked, 
"  Thou  shalt  surely  die  5  and  thou  givest  him  not  %varning, 

a  Philip.  I.  ir 


4  Introductory  Remarks, 

**  nor  speakest  to  warn  the  wicked  from  his  wicked  way,  to 
"  save  his  life  ;  the  same  wicked  man  shall  die  in  his  inl- 
"  quity  ;  but  his  blood  will  I  require  at  thine  hand.  Yet  if 
"  thou  warn  the  wicked,  and  he  turn  not  from  his  wicked- 
"  ness,  he  shall  die  in  his  iniquity  ;  but  thou  hast  delivered 
"  thy  soul."^ 

Nor  are  the  embassadors  of  Christ  the  only  persons  under 
obligations  to  oppose  error,  to  promote  holiness,  and  to  main- 
tain and  spread  "  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus."  This  is  the 
common  duty  of  every  one  who  believes  in  divine  revelation. 
And  while  ministers  are  particularly  charged,  "in  meekness, 
"  to  instruct  those  that  oppose  themselves"*^ — "  by  sound 
"  doctrine  to  convince  gainsayers"*i — to  rebuke  sharply^  and  to 
stop  the  mouths  of  vain  talkers  and  deceivers,  who  subvert 
whole  houses,  teaching  things  which  they  ought  not — and  to 
hold  fast  the  form  of  sound  words, ^  which  they  have  received 
— both  pastors  and  people  are  addressed  as  follows  :  "  Mark 
*•  them  Avhich  cause  divisions,  contrary  to  the  doctrines  which 
"  ye  have  learned  ;  and  avoid  them.  For  they  that  are  such 
*'  serve  not  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  and  by  good  words  and 
*^fair  speeches  deceive  the  hearts  of  the  simple."^ — "  If  there 
"  come  any  that  bring  not  this  doctrine,"  (the  doctrine  that 
the  eternal  Son  of  God  came  in  the  flesh,  or  assumed  human 
nature,)  "  receive  him  not  into  your  houses  ;  neither  bid  him 
"  God  speed  :  for  he  that  biddeth  him  God  speed  is  partaker 
*'  of  his  evil  deeds.''"'^ — "  Be  not  carried  about  with  divers  and 
"  strange  doctrines .'^''^ — "  Beware,  lest  ye,  being  led  away 
"  with  the  error  of  the  wicked,  fall  from  your  own  steadfast' 
"  ness  :  as  there  shall  be  false  teachers  among  you,  who  pri- 
"  vily  shall  bring  in  damnable  heresies,  even  denying  the  Lord 
"  that  bought  them.  And  many  shall  follow  their  pernicious 
"  ways ;  by  reason  of  whom  the  way  of  truth  shall  be  evil 
*'  spoken  of.^'-' — "  Ye  should  earnestly  contend  for  the  faith 
"  which  was  once  delivered  unto  the  5cmfs."j     In  fine^  the 

b  Ezek.  iii.  17,  18,  19.        c  2  Tim.  ii.  25.  a  Titus  i.  9,  10,  IL 

c2Tim.  i.  13.  f  Rom.  xvi.  17, 18.  B  2  John  10,  11. 

^  Heb.  xiii.  9.  >  2  Pet.  iii.  17;  ii.  1,  2.      J  >ude  3. 


Introductory  Remarks.  5 

.  Apostle  called  the  Gospel  which  he  preached,  "  the  truth 
"  which  is  according  to  godliness  ;"•'  and  he  says,  "  if  any 
"  man  teach  otherwise^  and  consent  not  lo  wholesome  words, 
"  and  to  the  doctrine  which  is  according  to  godliness  ;  he  is 
*'  proud,  knowing  nothing,  but  doting  about  questions  and 
*^  strifes  ofwords,^^^ 

These  passages  lay  down  a  rule  by  which  truth  may  be 
distinguished  from  error ;  truth  is,  and  error  is  not,  "  accord' 
"  ing  to  godliness  f^^  and  these  passages  prone  it  to  be  the  duty 
of  all  Christians,  to  take  pains,  that  they  may  be  able  to  de- 
fend the  truth,  to  refute  error,  and  to  "  give  to  every  one 
"  that  asketh,  a  reason  for  the  hope  that  is  in  them."  Nor  is 
it  in  all  cases  enough  for  the  heralds  of  the  Cross,  merely  to 
proclaim  these  things  from  the  pulpit.  Public  instructions  are 
evanescent  and  soon  forgotten.  When  the  subject  is  difficult, 
where  prejudices  are  to  be  encountered,  and  where  a  long 
series  of  arguments  is  adduced,  we  want  time  to  pause,  to  ex- 
amine, to  compare,  and  to  weigh  what  is  said :  or  else  the 
truth  will  fail  to  have  a  due  influence  upon  our  minds.  Those 
too  who  stand  most  in  need  of  these  instructions,  are  not 
always  present  to  hear  them,  at  the  time  they  are  delivered. 
Many  such  are  carried  away  by  false  doctrine,  because  they 
took  no  pains,  or  had  no  opportunity  of  becoming  acquainted 
with  the  true,  A  published  statement  of  the  truth,  too,  can 
always  be  referred  to,  whenever  the  occasion  may  demand 
it :  and  may  do  some  good,  by  falling  into  the  hands  of  those 
whom  curiosity  would  prompt  to  read  what  they  would  never 
take  the  trouble  of  going  to  church  to  hear. 

Nor  is  this  all.  Though  the  authority  of  God,  the  import- 
ance of  true  religion,  and  the  worth  of  souls,  make  it  the 
imperative  duty  of  every  Christian  to  embrace,  to  spread,  and 
to  defend,  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,  this  obligation  will  be 
carried  still  higher,  in  the  view  of  all  who  consider  that  mea 
naturally  "  love  darkness  rather  than  light,"  and  are  prone 
to  run  into  the  most  astonishing  extravagances  and  delusion?.. 

*  Titus  i.  1.  »  1  Tim.  vi.  3,  4, 


6  Inli'odudory  Remarkst 

Cicero  remarked  long  ago,  that  there  is  no  absurdity,  hotoeiicr 
great,  which  has  not  found  some  philosopher  to  be  its  advo- 
cate. And  however  flagrant  the  system  of  error  and  absar- 
dity  may  be,  if  any  one  steps  forward  as  its  champion,  and 
defends  it  by  his  sophistries — ^^or  throws  around  it  the  fascina^' 
tions  of  his  eloquence — he  is  sure  to  meet  with  many  disciples 
and  adherents  :  particularly  if  his  views  come  recommended 
by  their  novelty,  and  are  flattering  to  the  pride  of  human 
reason,  or  indulgent  to  the  depraved  inclinations  of  the  hu- 
man heart. 

What  system  of  rehgion  can  be  more  absurd  than  that 
which  requires  its  professors  to  worship  cats  and  dogs,  and 
cows  and  onions,  and  stocks  and  stones  ?  and  yet  millions 
worship  and  put  their  trust  in  these  vanities.  What  doctrine 
can  be  more  absurd  than  that  of  transubslantiation  ?  which 
reqiiires  us  to  believe,  contrary  to  the  evidence  of  all  our  senses^ 
that  a  morsel  of  bread,  which  would  not  fill  a  thimble,  is  the 
whole  body  and  blood  of  our  Saviour,  and  the  identical  flesh 
and  blood  too  that  hung  on  the  cross  ;  and  that,  contrary  te 
the  nature  of  matter,  this  one  identical,  material  horly,  is  pre- 
sent in  a  thousand  different  places,  at  one  and  the  same  mo- 
ment of  time.  And  still,  because  some  are  found  to  teacb 
this  doctrine,  millions  are  found  who  implicitly  believe  it. 

Who  could  ever  suppose  that  learned  men,  who  profess 
to  believe  m  the  Gospel,  who  call  themselves  Christians  and 
evangelical  divines,  should  nevertheless  declare,  and  write 
numerous  volumes  to  prove,  that  there  is  no  divine  revela- 
tion— that  there  is  not  a  single  real  miracle  recorded  in  the 
Old  or  New  Testament ;  they  being  but  natural  events,  highly 
exaggerated  and  embellished — that  some  of  the  doctrines  of 
Scripture  are  absolutely  false,  and  invented  by  the  sacred 
writers — that  the  rest  are  only  the  truths  and  duties  taught 
by  reason  and  natural  religion — and  that  the  Gospel  itself  ia 
a  pious  fraud,  a  beautiful  and  instructive  fable?  And  yet 
these  tenets— absurd,  impious,  and  extravagant  as  they  are — 
are  taught  by  numerous  able  German  divines :  and  their 
system,  though  it  be  arrant  Deism,  is  eagerly  embraced  and 


Introductory  Remarks.  7 

defended  by  their  numerous  disciples,  who  believe  them- 
selves, in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  words,  Gospel  Christians.^ 

In  fine,  what  more  nonsensical  than  the  philosophical  reve- 
ries of  the  infidel  Hume  ?  He  denied  the  existence  of  every 
thing  we  see.  He  said  there  was  no  real  sun  in  the  heavens, 
nor  a  real  earth  under  our  feet ;  and  (hat  our  eyes,  and  ears, 
and  hands,  exist,  7wt  in  reality,  but  only  in  imagination.  Now 
it  is  as  easy  to  believe  that  twice  two  is  ten,  as  to  believe 
that  we  have  no  real  existence,  but  exist  only  in  each  others 
imagination.  And  yet  the  reputation  and  sophistry  of  Hume, 
the  novelty  of  his  opinions,  and  their  irreligious  tendency, 
secured  for  him  many  admirers  and  disciples.  And  there  is 
no  knowing  how  far  this  moral  pestilence  would  have  spread, 
if,  under  Providence,  it  had  not  been  checked  by  the  writings 
of  Beattie,  Campbell,  and  other  champions  for  the  truth. 

The  absurdity  therefore  of  any  system  of  error  is  not  enough 
to  prevent  popular  delusion^  particularly  if  it  is  a  system  that 
is  not  "  according  to  godliness  :"  and  the  ministers  of  the 
Gospel  therefore,  who  are  the  divinely  appointed  guardians 
and  defenders  of  gospel  truth  and  holiness,  cannot,  by  this  plea, 
be  justified  for  acting  the  part  of  "  dumb  dogs ;"  lest  the 
people  "  perish  for  lack  of  knowledge.""  When  errors  the 
most  baneful  are  put  into  a  popular  and  plausible  shape — 
suited  to  the  depraved  taste  of  man — ingeniously  disguised, 
and  ushered  forth  under  the  sanction  of,  Thus  saith  the  Lord 
in  his  holy  word— and  carried  by  a  thousand  vehicles  to  the 
remotest  parts  of  our  country — it  becomes  the  friends  of  re« 
vealed  truth  to  take  care  that  the  cause  of  God  and  of  souls 
foe  not  injured.* 

m  Home's  Introd.  vol-  ii.  part  2,  ch.  1.         n  Isa.  Ivi.  10;  Hos,  iv.  6. 

•  The  new  Universalism,  which  commenced  in  this  country  about  fifty 
years  ago,  being  first  preached  by  Murray,  numbers  at  this  time,  about 
130  ministers,  500  congregations,  and  thousands  of  professing  members. 
The  state  of  New-York  alone  has  at  least  70  societies.  In  Ohio  alone, 
within  the  space  of  seven  years,  they  increased  from  20  to  upwards  of 
1500  members !  They  hold  three  annual  conventions,  in  New  England^ 
STew-york,  and  Ohio.    They  supported,  in  1822,  eight  periodical  publica- 


S  Introductory  Remarks. 

These  are  some  of  the  reasons  which,  in  our  view,  render 
the  present  publication  a  duty.  And  if  these  are  not  deemed 
sufficient,  more  may  be  found  in  the  course  of  the  ensuing 
remarks. 

We  do  not  flatter  ourselves  with  the  hope  of  convincing  all 
who  hear  or  read  our  remarks.  Some  are  incapable  of  weigh- 
ing an  argument,  or  of  estimating  evidence.  Such  will  always 
choose  what  pleases  them  best,  without  regard  to  reason  or 
truth.  Some  are  misled,  by  sophistry  and  false  principles  of 
reasoning,  into  errors  flattering  to  their  pride,  or  grateful  to 
their  depraved  inclinations ;  and  as  we  easily  believe  what 
we  wish  to  be  true,  truth  has  poor  prospects,  when  both  so- 
phistry and  a  depraved  heart  are  leagued  against  her.  Some 
have  committed  themselves ;  and  the  pride  of  being  thought 
consistent,  prevents  them  from  retracing  their  steps.  Some 
are  Gallios,  who  care  nought  about  these  things ;  and  whose 
indolence  keeps  them  from  feeling  an  interest  on  either  side. 
In  fine,  some  are  blinded  by  the  influence  of  prejudice,  en- 
thusiasm, or  passion  ;  and  such  cannot  see  the  truth,  shine  it 
ever  so  refulgent.  Such  persons  are  not  very  promising  can- 
didates for  conviction. 

But  a  vindication  and  exposition  of  the  truth  may  hope  for 
a  fair  hearing,  from  all  who  are  capable  of  judging,  who  feel 
an  interest  in  the  truth,  and  who  are  anxious  to  be  guarded 
against  error — from  all  those  who  are  unprejudiced,  and  de- 
sirous of  information,  upon  the  all-important  subjects  of  reli- 
gious truth  and  duty.  This,  we  trust,  forms  a  very  numerous 
class  in  society.  And  upon  all  such,  at  least,  we  hope  the 
following  remarks  may  have  a  salutary  influence.  And  as 
these  are  scattered  over  the  whole  of  community,  we  may 
further  indulge  the  hope,  that,  through  the  blessing  of  God, 
the  knowledge  and  the  influence  of  revealed  truth  may, 

tlons ;  and  besides  their  larger  works,  no  less  than  10,000  copies  of  these 
are  constantly  circulated  through  every  state,  section,  and  district  of  the 
country !  By  these  means,  under  the  fascinating  influence  of  their  doc- 
trines, their  converts,  preachers,  and  societies,  are  rapidly  increasing. 


Introductory  Remarks.  9 

through  their  agency,  be  extended  to  many  of  those  by  whom 
they  are  surrounded. 

Lest  our  numerous  references  in  the  margin  should  be 
thought  pedantic,  we  remark,  that  we  deem  it  the  duly  of 
every  writer  upon  important  or  disputed  points,  to  quote  his 
authorities.  Neglecting  to  do  so,  looks  at  least  suspicious  : 
it  leads  to  the  inference  that  the  writer  has  no  authorities  to 
quote,  or  that  he  quotes  at  random,  or  that  he  is  afraid  of 
having  his  authorities  examined,  lest  they  should  not  bear 
him  out  in  his  assertions.  Nothing  indeed  is  to  be  supposed 
true,  merely  because  it  is  believed  \>y  some  learned  men  : 
and  we  are  among  the  last  in  the  world  who  would  stand,  hat 
19  hand,  bowing  to  authorities.  The  opinions  of  the  learned 
are  worth  nothing,  any  further  than  they  are  supported  by 
arguments  and  by  facts.  Still,  it  is  always  a  satisfaction  to 
know  that  we  have  great  names  on  our  side.  We  are  ready 
to  call  in  question  every  opinion  that  is  not  thus  supported. 
And  if  any  system  of  doctrine  were  sanctioned  by  the  au- 
thority of  the  learned  and  good,  for  a  long  series  of  ages — 
like  the  fabled  chain  of  fate,  let  down  from  Jupiter's  throne 
to  our  earth — it  might,  on  this  account,  with  considerable 
propriety,  be  deemed  indissoluble.  Besides,  quoting  authori- 
ties is  a  directory  to  those  who  wish  to  read  more  largely 
upon  the  subject. 

Further,  as  religious  truth  is  not  systematically  taught,  but 
dispersedly  contained  in  the  Scriptures — as  the  whole  truth 
upon  any  subject  can  never  be  learned,  except  by  bringing 
together  into  one  view  every  passage  in  the  sacred  volume 
Irelating  to  that  subject — as  the  neglect  of  this  is,  next  to  the 
'depravity  of  our  nature,  the  most  fruitful  source  of  those 
{errors,  sects,  and  heresies,  with  which  the  Church  of  God  is 
,  afflicted — and  as  very  few  Christians  have  the  means  of  find- 
Xjing  out  in  what  part  of  God's  word  a  passage  is  found,  if  the 
^IplaceMhereJt  is  quoted  be  not  designated — we  have  taken 
'X   care  always  to  enable  the  reader  to  turn  to  the  passage  in  the 
Bible,  and  see  the  connexion  in  which  it  stands,  and  the 
bearing  which  it  has  upon  the  subject  under  discussion. 


J-0  Introduciory  Remarks . 

In  fine,  if  the  language  that  occurs  in  the  ensuing  rema  rks 
is  sometimes  strong  and  startling,  it  is  because  we  can  find 
no  other  language  that  would  do  justice  to  the  subjectr— that 
would  adequately  convey  our  ideas — that  would  exhibit  the 
truth  to  the  reader  in  all  its  force  and  all  its  dimensions. 
And  though  we  extend  to  the  motives  and  the  consequent 
conduct  of  our  fellow-creatures,  every  indulgence  that  the 
enlarged  charity  of  the  Gospel  demands,  we  do  not  feel  at 
liberty  to  hold  any  parley  with  error.  We  feel  bound  to  give 
it  no  quarter :  and  we  are  anxious  to  exhibit  it  to  every  one, 
in  all  the  deformity  in  whir.h  it  appears  before  heaven ;  that 
it  may  excite  in  us  an  abhorrence,  proportioned  to  the  degree 
in  which  it  stands  arrayed  against  the  pure  truth,  and  the 
Ijenevolent  purposes  of  a  pure  and  holy  God. 

A  Christian  should  indeed  neither  do,  say,  nor  write  any 
thing,  without  a  religious  motive,  and  a  sufficient  reasorip  We 
have  endeavoured,  therefore,  to  weigh  every  phrase  and  every 
sentence  ;  and  while  our  reasons  for  what  we  have  said  are 
such  as  appear  to  us  sufficient,  our  motives  are  such  as,  we 
trust,  the  Searcher  of  hearts  will  approve. 


REMARKS 


DISTINGUISHING  DOCTRINE 


MODEIIZV    UNZVB&SALZSl^. 


Whoever  has  heard  an  able  and  experrenced  lawyer  plead 
a  bad  cause,  must  have  observed  how,  by  wit  and  sophistry, 
he  can  make  "  the  worse  appear  the  better  reason :"  and 
how,  by  his  eloquence  and  appeals  to  the  passions,  he  can 
induce  men  to  believe,  or  do,  what,  in  the  calmer  moments 
of  reflection,  they  would  condemn.  In  general,  not  one  out 
of  twenty  is  capable,  at  the  moment,  to  detect  the  sophistry 
of  an  able  and  experienced  reasoner  :  and  hence  the  muIti-> 
tudes  who  are  incompetent  to  form  an  enlightened  judgment, 
founded  upon  a  comprehensive  view  of  the  subject,  follow  the 
opinion  of  the  speaker  last  heard ;  and  veer  about  from  side 
to  side,  as  present  feelings  and  arguments  may  move  them. 
Hence  the  experience  of  mankind  has  laid  it  down  as  an  in- 
valuable rule,  that  if  we  wish  to  come  at  truth,  we  must  "  hear 
"  with  both  ears''''  before  we  decide.  And  that  our  judgment 
may  be  enlightened  and  unprejudiced,  truth  and  justice,  in 
our  c0urts,  are  not  left  to  be  collected  from  the  representa- 
tions of  interested  pleaders,  who  have  a  side  or  party  to  sup° 
port ;  but  a  well  informed  and  experienced  judge  is  appointed 
to  detect  sophistry,  to  strip  the  subject  of  all  that  is  irrelevant, 
to  point  out  what  laws,  and  facts,  and  arguments  have  a  bear- 
ing upon  it— and  in  fine,  to  present  the  whole  matter  before 


12  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

the  jury  in  its  true  colours,  and  with  all  its  merits  and  de* 
merits. 

If  the  ignorance,  the  errors,  the  sophistry,  and  the  per- 
verseness  of  men,  render  these  precautions  necessary  in  secu- 
lar matters^  how  much  more  are  they  necessary  in  those  mat- 
ters which  involve  our  everlasting  interests.  If  it  would  be 
unwise  to  judge  precipitately,  and  from  ex-parte  statements, 
in  the  one  case,  it  must  be  the  extreme  of  folly  in  the  other. 
If  we  ever  act  with  caution,  ought  it  not  to  be  in  receiving  a 
system  of  religion  which  contradicts  and  subverts  every  system 
of  religion  the  world  has  ever  received?  Before  we  embrace 
it,  ought  we  not  to  know  well  what  it  is,  and  what  may  be  said 
against  it,  as  well  as  in  its  favour  ? 

Let  it  not  be  said,  I  have  all  my  life  long  heard  the  doc- 
trines of  hell  and  damnation  preached  and  defended  :  I  have 
heard  all  that  can  be  said  in  their  favour ;  and  I  wish  there- 
fore now  to  hear  what  can  be  said  against  them.  Thus  some 
talk  ;  but  they  are  certainly  mistaken.  These  doctrines  hav- 
ing been  universally  believed,  ministers,  almost  always,  speak 
of  them  as  received  truths,  without  undertaking  to  explain,  to 
defend,  or  to  answer  objections  to  them.  When,  therefore, 
the  truth  of  these  doctrines  is  called  in  question,  arguments 
and  answers  are  required,  that  probably  were  never  heard 
from  the  pulpit.  The  embassadors  of  Christ  cannot,  in  con- 
science, turn  their  pulpits  into  an  arena  for  controversy  with 
all  the  hydra  heresies  that  from  year  to  year  are  bursting  into 
life.  And  when  fidelity  to  God  and  man  leads  them  to  notice 
them  in  their  public  discourses,  there  are  a  thousand  minute 
and  metaphysical  points,  sophistries,  and  objections,  which,  for 
obvious  reasons,  cannot  be  fully  discussed.  No  one  there- 
fore, who  values  religious  truth  as  its  importance  demands, 
and  who  knows  how  necessary  it  is  to  be  circumspect  and 
impartial,  can  possibly  persuade  himself  that  he  is  fully  com- 
petent  to  form  an  enlightened  opinion,  until  the  merits  of  the 
question  have  been  amply  stated  and  examined  on  both  sides 
— until  every  argument  has  been  contrasted  with  its  appro- 
priate answer — and  until  every  objection  has  received  its 
specific  reply.    This  indeed  is  not  necessary  for  all  Chris- 


Modern  Universalism*  13 

tians ;  but  it  is  necessary  before  any  one  can  be  justified  in 
embracing  a  new  doctrine,  directly  contrary  to  all  that  has 
ever  before  been  taught  or  believed  in  the  Christian  world. 

Regarding  this  as  both  reasonable  and  just,  we  shall  now 
present  a  summary  view  of  that  new  system  of  religion,  which 
has  of  late  years  been  taught  in  England  and  in  this  country 
under  the  name  of  Universal  Salvation,  or  Universal  Resto- 
ration. This  indeed  can  be  done  in  very  few  words :  for 
this  new  sect  of  Universalists  was  founded  about  fifty  years 
ago,  by  a  Mr.  Relly,  in  England ;  and  while  they  differ  ma- 
terially from  each  other  on  various  other  points,  they  all 
agree  in  this  one — that  there  is  no  punishment  for  the  wicked 
after  death.  Relly  and  his  followers  say,  that  Christ  bore  all 
the  punishment  due  to  sin  and  sinners  both  in  this  world  and 
in  the  next — that  sinners  therefore  are  not  punished  for  sin, 
even  in  this  world — and  that  every  individual  of  the  whole 
human  race  will  be  saved  hereafter,  through  the  atonement 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Of  this  doctrine  a  certain  Univer- 
salist  writer  in  this  country  observes — "  Let  any  one  preach 
"  this  system  fully,  and  he  would  either  be  pitied  as  a  ma- 
"  niac,  or  prosecuted  as  a  disturber  of  the  public  peace." 
The  system  embraced  by  other  late  Universalists  differs 
however,  very  little  from  this.  They  deny  that  there  is  any 
punishment  after  death.  They  maintain,  of  course,  that  there 
neither  is  nor  will  be  any  such  place  as  hell.  They  say,  all 
the  punishment  which  God  threatens,  and  which  the  wicked 
suffer,  is  in  this  world ;  and  consists  in  bodily  sufferings,  in 
remorse  of  conscience,  and  in  the  punishments  inflicted  by 
the  civil  authority  :  and  they  believe  that  God  will  hereafter, 
out  of  his  infinite  goodness,  take  the  vilest  sinners  and  the 
greatest  saints  into  the  same  heaven  ;  and  bestow  everlasting 
life  and  happiness  upon  every  individual  of  the  human  race. 

These  are  their  peculiar  doctrines,  by  which  they  stand 
prominently  distinguished  from  the  rest  of  the  world.  In 
other  respects,  the  system  of  Universalism  lately  preached 
here  generally  harmonizes  with  the  views  of  the  Unitarians  : 
though  it  seems  more  fearless  and  adventurous  in  its  reason- 
ings and  its  criticisms.     The  subordinate  features  of  the  sy?' 


14  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

tem  it  may  be  well  to  state,  hy  may  of  information;  that 
the  reader  may  take  a  comprehensive  view  of  the  whole 
scheme. 

Be  it  then  known,  that  the  Universalist  scheme  rejects^ 
what  the  Christian  Church  has  always  received  and  revered 
as  the  peculiar^  distinguishing,,  and  most  essential  doctrines 
of  the  Gospel.  This  scheme  denies  the  doctrine  of  the  Tri- 
nity. It  denies  the  divinity  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  and 
degrades  him  to  the  rank  of  a  mere  prophet  like  Moses,  and 
a  mere  man  like  ourselves.  It  denies  the  doctrine  of  the 
atonerrient;  and  declares,  that  it  fears  the  justice  no  more 
than  it  does  the  mercy  of  God.  As  far  as  we  have  been  able 
to  learn,  it  denies  the  doctrines  of  the  fall,  the  depravity  of 
our  nature,  and  the  necessity  of  the  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  enable  us  to  serve  God — as  well  as  the  doctrine  of 
justification  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  final  salvation  through 
his  merits  and  mediation.  In  fine,  it  receives  some,  and  re- 
jects  other  books  of  the  New  Testament — it  denies  the  full 
inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  gives  part  of  it,  at 
least,  no  more  authority  than  it  does  to  the  uninspired  writ- 
ings of  uninspired  men — and  it  adopts  that  rationalizing  prin- 
ciple of  interpretation,  which,  when  it  meets  with  passages 
that  contain  something  mysterious,  explains  away  the  meaning 
of  them,  until  they  signify  no  more  than  every  body's  reason 
can  understand  and  approve. 

Such  is,  brief y^  what  is  taught  and  held  by  the  new  Univer- 
salists  of  the  present  day.  On  many  of  these  points,  how- 
ever, there  may  be  a  diversity  of  opinion  :  and  as  the  system 
is  still  unfledged  and  in  its  infancy,  it  may  undergo  many 
important  alterations  before  it  is  completely  licked  into  shapCi 
and  formally  embodied  in  a  creed  or  a  confession  of  faith. 
One  feature  excepted,  it  approaches  so  near  to  Deism,  that 
it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  some  Deists  should  have 
mistaken  it  for  their  own  religion  in  disguise.  Indeed,  some 
of  its  advocates  declare,  that  Deism  approaches  nearer  to  re- 
sealed  truth  than  orthodox  Christianity  does.  But  be  this  as 
it  may,  we  shall  not  enter  into  an  examination  of  these  minor 
points  J  but  confine  ourselves  to  the  distinguishing  doctrine  of 


Modern  Univtrsalism,  15 

ihe  sect — that  "  not  a  single  individual  of  the  human  race 
*'  will  be  punished  after  death." 

Before  we  enter  upon  this  point,  let  it  be  distinctly  re- 
membered, that  nothing  we  say  or  have  said,  is  to  be  under- 
stood as  having  a  personal  reference  to  any  individual.  We 
impeach  not,  we  call  not  in  question  the  motives  of  any  Uni- 
versalist,  or  of  any  one  who  is  favourably  inclined  towards 
that  scheme.  For  all  we  know,  they  may  be  just  as  sincere, 
as  faithful,  and  as  "  fully  persuaded,"  as  we  are.  Like  Paul 
the  persecutor,  they  may  think  and  act  as  they  do,  '•  igno- 
"  rantly  in  unbelief."  God  forbid  that  we,  who  know  not  the 
heart,  should  undertake  to  judge  them.  They  will  stand  or 
fall  before  their  own  Master,  the  heart-searching  God,  who 
alone  can  estimate  motives  ;  and  who  alone  knows  what 
allowance  to  make  for  invincible  or  unavoidable  ignorance, 
error,  and  prejudice.  For  those  of  them  with  whom  we  are 
acquainted,  we  have  a  very  sincere  personal  regard ;  nor 
could  we  say  with  propriety  of  any,  that  they  are  already 
established  Universalists.  Some  appear  inclined  to  that  doc- 
trine, who  will  probably,  after  mature  deliberation,  abandon 
it  as  untenable.  But  whatever  their  opinions,  we  speak 
plainly  and  strongly — not  because  we  love  them  less,  but  be- 
cause we  love  truth  more.  We  respect  their  motives  and 
persons ;  for  error  we  have  no  respect.  Our  concern  is  not 
with  their  motives,  but  with  their  doctrines — and  of  these 
doctrines  we  shall  not  hesitate  to  speak,  as  "  becometh  the 
"  Gospel."  If  we  may  be  permitted  to  use  the  translated 
language  of  the  Apostle,  these  "  damnable  heresies"  we  shall 
pursue,  until  (if  God  enable  us  so  to  do)  we  have  hunted 
them  over  the  precipice,  into  the  abyss  from  which  they  have 
emerged.  And  as  this  cause  is  thine,  blessed  Lord  !  do  thou 
teach  my  hands  to  war,  and  my  fingers  to  fight.  Let  thy 
Holy  Spirit  inspire,  direct,  and  overrule  my  thoughts  and  my 
language.  Carry  thine  own  truth  to  the  heart  of  every  reader, 
with  a  conviction  that  cannot  be  withstood—and  let  not  our 
sins  be  any  further  visited,  nor  the  fair  face  of  thy  Zion  be 
any  further  defiled,  with  a  heresy  that  would  disgrace  the 
very  religion  of  the  heathens. 


16  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  oj 

Lastly,  let  it  be  observed,  that,  in  arguing  with  the  Univer- 
salist,  we  consider  him  as  a  believer  in  divine  revelation,  and 
in  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures — because  all  who 
have  heretofore  written  in  favour  of  this  scheme,  have  pro- 
fessed themselves  believers— because,  if  they  do  not  believe 
these  things,  they  are  infidels,  and  with  them  we  do  not 
here  enter  into  controversy—and  because  the  great  danger 
of  Universalism  lies  in  its  wearing  the  garb  of  Christianity, 
and  pleading  in  its  favour  the  sanctions  of  our  holy  religion. 
Strip  it  of  these  assumed  and  Imposing  advantages,  and  it 
loses  the  only  passport  it  has  to  notice,  and  would  soon  sink 
into  merited  contempt.  Now,  many  ignorant  unstable  souls 
swallow  this  gilded  pill,  to  their  own  undoing. 

Having  made  these  introductory  remarks,  we  proceed  now 
to  our  proposed  subject.  The  new  Universalist  scheme 
teaches,  that  there  is  no  punishment  for  the  wicked  after 
death;  but  that  the  vilest  sinners  take  their  seats  in  the  same 
heaven,  and  are  admitted  to  the  same  everlasting  blessedness, 
with  the  holiest  saints.  Fornicators,  adulterers,  thieves,  liars, 
drunkards,  and  murderers — ^the  vilest  of  the  vile,  and  the 
most  abominable  of  miscreants — of  all  whom  the  Apostle  ex- 
pressly declares,  that  "  they  have  no  inheritance  in  the  king- 
*'  dom  ofGod^''^ — all  these,  according  to  the  Universalist,  are 
to  sit  down  together  with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  in  the 
kingdom  of  our  heavenly  Father — and  heaven  is  to  be  equally 
the  receptacle  for  the  pious  and  the  impious,  for  the  lovers  of 
God  and  the  haters  of  God — heaven  is  to  be  equally  the  re- 
ceptacle for  Judas  that  betrayed  Christ,  and  for  John  that 
loved  him  to  the  death  5  for  Abel  who  died  in  faith,  and  for 
Cain  his  murderer.  In  that  same  holy  place,  where  Apostles 
and  martyrs  reap  the  reward  of  their  holiness,  debauchees, 
and  cut-throats,  and  the  enemies  of  God,  arehkewise  to  have 
their  blessed  portion :  and  Servin,  who  died  in  a  brothel,  with 
a  bottle  in  his  hand,  cursing  his  Maker,  is  to  dwell  in  the  same 
pure  and  holy  mansions,  and  be  engaged  in  the  same  pure 
and  holy  employment,  with  Noah,  Daniel  and  Job,  Peter, 
James  and  John. 

a  1  Cor.  vi.  9, 10  J  Gal.  v.  19,  20,  21 ;  and  Eph.  v.  5. 


Modern  Universalism,  17 

Now  this  is  so  outrageous  an  absurdity,  that  it  would  be 
Imnecessary  to  say  any  thing  about  it,  did  not  ignorance  and 
depravity  on  the  one  hand,  and  sophistry,  together  with  un- 
wearied zeal,  on  the  other,  render  every  such  error  danger- 
ous to  the  faith  and  morals  of  the  great  mass  of  community; 
who,  like  the  unthinking  herd,  follow  a  kw  distinguished 
leaders,  and  go,  not  where  reason  and  truth,  but  where  pre- 
judice and  inclination,  the  love  of  indulgence  and  the  strength 
of  their  excitements,  may  carry  them. 

In  order  then  to  put  the  unwary  on  their  guard,  and  to  sa- 
tisfy those  who  wish  to  hear  with  both  ears  before  they  judge, 
we  proceed  to  remark,  that  we  feel  compelled  to  reject  and 
condemn  the  above  mentioned  doctrine. 

1st.  Because  of  its  exceedingly  immoral  and  disorganizing 
tendency.  If  this  doctrine  be  believed,  and  carried  out  into 
its  natural  consequences  upon  human  character  and  conduct, 
what  security  can  we  have  for  i\ie  peace  and  prosperity  of  so- 
ciety — what  security  can  we  have  for  our  property,  our  chastity, 
or  our  lives  ?  If  it  is  believed,  men  will  inevitably  act  under  its 
influence  :  and  it  is  well,  therefore,  that  its  flagrant  absurdity 
and  impiety  tend  to  shield  community,  in  some  measure,  from 
its  deleterious  effects.  For  in  all  ages,  even  under  the  high 
and  awful  sanctions  of  everlasting  rewards  and  punishments, 
it  has  been  extremely  diffictdt  to  restrain  the  passions  of  men 
from  breaking  out  into  every  species  of  enormity — and  that, 
not  because  they  did  not  believe  those  sanctions,  (for  in  the 
Christian  world,  at  least,  the  great  mass  of  society  have  al- 
ways implicitly  believed  them,)  but  because  the  nature  of  man 
is  so  depraved,  and  his  passions  so  impetuous,  that  nothing 
short  of  such  sanctions  can  form  an  adequate  restraint.  When 
men  have  become  truly  religious,  "  the  love  of  Christ  will 
"  constrain"  them  to  live  a  holy  life :  but  previously  to  that, 
nothing  short  of  the  fear  of  punishment  in  a  future  as  well  as 
the  present  world,  can  keep  the  great  mass  of  mankind  from 
the  worst  vices  and  crimes.  To  do  away  all  fear  of  future 
punishment,  therefore,  is  to  roeaken  the  obligation  and  the 
binding  force  of  all  laws,  and  to  remove  the  only  paramount 
restraints  by  which  families,  communities,  and  nations,  are 

3 


18  Remarks  on  ike  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

kept  in  any  tolerable  state  of  peace,  order,  and  happiness— ii 
k  taking  away  the  07ily  effectual  check  to  the  wicked  inclina- 
tions, the  voluptuous  propensities,  and  the  malicious  passions 
of  our  nature;  and  subjecting  the  lives,  the  liberties,  the  pro- 
perty, and  the  innocence  of  the  well  disposed  members  of 
community,  to  the  depredations,  the  insults,  and  the  violence 
of  those  who  are  unprincipled,  and  who  "  have  not  the  feay 
"  of  God  before  their  eyes." 

If  the  most  abandoned  sinners  as  well  as  the  greatest  saints 
go  to  heaven  when  they  die,  what  is  there  to  prevent  the 
e'xistence  or  the  gratification  of  pride,  avarice,  envy,  angers 
hatred,  and  malice  ?  What  is  there  to  prevent  lustful,  re- 
vengeful, and  impious  thoughts,  desires,  intentions,  and  pas- 
sions ?  What  is  there  to  prevent  any  one  of  those  numerous 
sins,  of  which  men  may  be  guilty  in  the  secret  chambers  of 
their  own  hearts  P  What  is  there  to  prevent  any  other  crime, 
provided  it  can  be  perpetrated  in  secret;  and  thus  escape 
the  vigilance  of  m^en,  and  the  punitive  retributions  of  human 
laws  ?  What  under  heaven  is  there  to  prevent  the  enormous 
crimes  of  perjury  and  blasphemy,  and  suicide  and  murder  ? 

The  greatest  security  that  society  has  for  life,  liberty,  chas- 
tity, property^  and  happines'S,  is  found  in  the  obligations  cf  an 
oath.  But  this  security  h  founded  upon  the  universal  persua- 
sio7ii  that  God  will  punish  the  blasphemous  sin  of  perjury  in  a 
future  state,  since  it  is  so  injurious  to  the  welfare  of  society, 
since  it  is  a  high-handed  offence  against  the  great  God,  and 
since  it  very  frequently  escapes  detection  and  punishment  in 
this  life.  If  then  blasphemers,  perjured  wretches,  murderers 
of  fathers  and  murderers  of  mothers,  meet  with  no  punish- 
ment after  death,  but  go  straight  to  heaven,  the  very  founda- 
tions of  society  are  undermined,  and  the  very  bonds  that  hold 
society  together  are  dissolved ;  and  were  this  doctrine  to  be- 
come universal,  no  laws  however  severe,  no  executive  how- 
ever vigilant,  could  preserve  the  human  race  from  the  most 
accumulated  sufferings,  from  the  most  unexampled  confusion, 
and  finally,  from  utter  extinction  in  this  world.  All  the  horrors 
and  enormities  of  the  French  revolution  would  soon  be  ex- 
hibited over  again — and  we  should  live  in  perpetual  dread  of 


Modern  UniversalUm*  19 

having  our  sisters  and  daughters  polluted,  and  ourselves  as- 
sassinated, if  we  dared,  either  in  public  or  private,  to  stir 
tongue  or  hand  in  their  defence.  For  what  is  to  prevent  these 
enormities  ?  May  not  all  say,  Let  us  eat,  drink,  and  be  merry 
— let  us  enjoy  ourselves  at  all  haz^irds  ?  If  we  are  overtaken, 
and  in  danger  of  severe  punishment  from  reian,  let  us -cut  our 
throats  and  go  to  heaven  1 

Besides,  since  we  live  in  a  world  of  sorrow  and  suffering, 
iii  which  all  share  more  or  less  largely — since  a  very  large 
portion  of  the  human  race  are  always  found  groaning  under 
poverty,  sickness,  disease,  or  some  other  affliction — and  since, 
sooner  or  later,  this  is  the  lot  of  almost  every  individual :  sup- 
pose all  were ftdli/  persuaded o( the  Universahst  doctrine, what 
could  hinder  those  who  were  in  a  state  of  suffering,  from  com- 
mitting .luicide,  and  taking  a  short  cut  to  heaven  !  In  num- 
berless instances,  what  could  prevent  a  destitute,  afflicted 
father  of  a  family  from  murdering  himself,  after,  in  the  pleni- 
tude of  his  mercy,  he  Irad  murdered  his  wife  and  children ! 
Would  it  not  be  natural  for  all  the  clrlldren  of  penury  and 
sorrow  to  reason  thus  ?  Why  should  I  continue  here  in  a 
state  of  suffering,  when  I  can  be  relieved  at  once  of  all  my 
troubles  ?  The  good  and  gracious  God  has  no  punishment 
for  me,  except  in  this  world  ;  and  heaven  is  a  slate  of  endless 
and  inconceivable  happiness,  into  which,  after  I  leave  this 
Kfe,  I  shall  ere  long  be  admitted.  Am  I  not  then  most  unrea' 
-sonabie  and  foolish,  if  I  continue  here  in  suffering,  when  1 
can,  in  a  moment,  terminate  my  sufferings  and  go  to  heaven  ? 
Am  I  not  cruel  to  my  own  family,  if  I  refuse  to  deliver  them 
out  of  their  sorrows,  though  I  have  it  in  my  power?  Let 
those  who  love  misery  better  than  happiness,  stay  here  in  this 
world  as  long  as  they  please.  As  this  is  the  only  hell  -vie  are 
to  suffer,  1  think  it  madness  to  remain.  I  prefer  stepping  out 
of  time  into  eternity,  in  order  to  get  from  hell  to  heaven;  and 
I  do  most  earnestly  advise  every  human  being,  the  first  mo- 
ment they  get  into  any  serious  difficulties,  to  put  an  easy  end 
instantly  to  all  their  troubles,  by  taking  opium  enough  to  put 
themselves  so  soundly  to  sleep,  as  never  to  wake  again  in  this 
world. 


20  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doclri?ie  of 

As  surely  as  it  is  natural  for  us  to  desire  happiness  and 
dread  suffering,  so  surely  the  above  reasoning  is  natural  and 
C07isistent  in  the  moulh  of  a  Universalist.  And  this  exhibits 
such  a  view  of  this  new^  doctrine  of  Universalism  as  may  well 
make  the  heart  sicken  at  its  absurdity,  and  cause  us  to  stand 
aghast  with  horror,  at  the  awfully  destructive  consequences 
to  which  it  leads. 

Let  it  not  be  said  that  we  have  overcharged  the  picture. 
It  is  impossible  to  overcharge  it,  with  pen  or  pencil ;  for  the 
imagination  even  cannot  adequately  conceive  of  all  the  enor- 
mities and  horrors  which  this  Universalist  doctrine  has  a  ten- 
dency to  produce.  Doctrines  of  such  deep-toned  horror  can- 
not too  soon,  or  with  too  much  indignation,  be  consigned  to 
universal  infamy  and  execration. 

Let  this  not  be  called  declamation.  It  is,  at  most,  the  de- 
clamatory earnestness  of  indignant  truth  and  insulted  religion. 
In  such  a  cause,  coldness  would  be  treason. 

Let  it  not  be  said  that  remorse  of  conscience,  and  the  other 
punishments  which  follow  vice  and  crime  in  this  world,  are 
sufficient  to  restrain  men  from  wickedness,  or  lead  them  to 
virtue.  Fear  of  future  punishment  is,  with  the  wicked,  the 
chief  ingredient  in  remorse  of  conscience.  Remove  this  fear 
altogether,  and  their  consciences  will  be  easy  enough.  Be- 
sides which,  the  wicked  may  make  this,  and  every  other  pu- 
nishment in  this  life,  as  light  and  short  as  they  please,  by  an 
immediate  and  voluntary  death :  and  if  death  is  a  certain 
change  from  hell  to  heaven,  he  must  be  a  fool  that  would 
hesitate. 

Moreover,  suppose  a  Universalist  should  go  about  the 
country  and  say  to  liars,  thieves,  murderers,  profligates,  and 
the  vilest  sinners  of  all  descriptions,  O  all  ye,  my  dear  bro- 
thers and  sisters,  who  are  travelling  on  to  the  same  heavenly 
kingdom  with  myself,  hear  these  "glad  tidings  of  great  joy'' 
which  God  has  sent  me  to  preach  to  you.  He  is  exceedingly 
good  and  gracious,  not  willing  that  any  should  perish.  He 
has  sent  his  well  beloved  Son  into  the  world,  to  teach  us  that 
the  whole  world,  through  his  mercy,  shall  be  saved;  and  he 
has  commissioned  me  to  bring  you  this  glorious  news.    No 


Modern  Universctlism.  21 

matter  how  wicked  and  abandoned  you  may  be,  yon  are  ne- 
vertheless his  well  beloved  children.  And  though  there  are 
certain  evils  which  we  all  must  suffer  in  this  world,  yet  this 
is  but  the  common  lot  of  the  righteous  and  the  wicked.  And 
as  God  out  of  his  benevolence  wishes  you  to  be  happy,  I 
come  to  fulfil  the  purposes  of  his  benevolence,  and  to  make 
your  consciences  easy.  Some  of  you  are  horribly  afraid  of 
future  punishment,  and  of  the  suflferings  of  hell.  These  are 
all  bugbears  of  human  invention :  there  is  no  truth  in  them. 
Set  your  hearts  therefore  at  rest.  As  God  wishes  you  to  be 
happy,  the  more  easy  you  can  make  yourselves,  the  better  for 
you,  and  the  more  agreeable  to  his  merciful  intentions.  I 
call  upon  all  of  you  therefore,  however  profligate  you  may 
be,  to  rejoice  in  him  whose  mercy  is  over  all  his  works.  Be 
not  afraid  :  you,  as  well  as  the  greatest  saints,  shall  go  to 
heaven  after  death. 

Should  a  Universalist  preacher  use  this  language,  is  it  not 
perfectly  consistent  with  his  principles?  Would  those  go 
much  further,  who,  like  Voltaire,  should  say,  "  to  enjoy  our- 
"  selves  is  to  serve  God ;  for  uur  inclinations  and  propensitie-i 
'■^  are  so  many  distinct  indications  of  the  will  of  God?^^^ 
Would  this  not  be  completely  opening  the  flood-gates  of 
licentiousness,  to  deluge  the  world  with  abominations  and 
crimes  ?  And  does  this  new  system  of  Universalism,  then, 
differ  much  from  Relly's  system  ?  of  which  a  Universalist 
writer  observes  in  substance — "  The  man  who  should  preach 
"  such  a  doctrine  fully,  would  either  be  pitied  as  a  maniac, 
"  or  prosecuted  as  a  disturber  of  the  public  peace." 

Let  the  experiment  be  made.  Let  the  doctrine  of  the 
Universalist  be  fully  preached,  in  all  its  bearings,  to  your 
slaves,  to  the  ignorant  and  lower  classes  of  society,  and  to 
those  who  are  leading  ungodly  lives ;  and  woful  experience 
will  soon  teach  you  whether  it  is  calculated  to  make  men 
better  or  worse.  Indeed,  we  need  not  be  at  a  loss  to  know  its 
effects,  from  the  remarks  that  have  already  been  made  by 
some,  who  drank  in  the  UniversaHst  poison  that  has  lately 

^  Leland  on  the  Advantages,  &c.  vol.  ii.  p.  2,  chap.  6. 


22  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

been  mixed  with  the  droppings  of  a  neighbouring  sanctuary : 
and  if  Universalism  is  to  be  preached  over  the  whole  of  our 
country,  the  devil,  who  has  heretofore  been  in  the  habit  of 
*'  going  about  like  a  roaring  lion,  seeking  whom  he  might  de- 
"  vour,"  may  in  future  save  himself  that  trouble,  since  the 
Universalist  doctrine  is  calculated  to  do  that  work  most  effec- 
tually. 

The  Universalist  scheme  does  indeed  inculcate  the  ordi- 
nary duties  of  morality,  and  some  of  the  ordinary  duties  of 
religion :  but  it  takes  away  the  sanctions  by  which  God  cn- 
forces  those  duties ;  and  thus  renders  its  preaching  of  none 
effect.  In  vain  do  we  leach  the  wicked  to  "  do  justice,  love 
"  mercy,  and  walk  humbly  with  God,"  if  we  rob  them  of  the 
only  inducements  that  can  secure  obedience  to  this  precept. 
If  they  are  not  compelled  to  it  by  irresistible  grace,  what 
shall  cause  them  to  deny  themselves,  to  take  up  the  cross, 
and  to  lead  a  godly  life  f  Conscience  ?  Multitudes  have  no 
conscience— the  conscience  of  multitudes  is  seared  and  inac- 
tive—the disbeHef  of  future  punishment  leaves  the  conscience 
of  the  unawakened  sinner  altogether  powerless — and  wherever 
conscience  does  strike  its  scorpion  sting  into  the  bosom,  sui- 
cide  can  instantly  extract  it,  and  hush  its  loudest  clamours 
into  peace.  What  then  shall  induce  the  wicked  to  renounce 
their  guilty  pleasures,  and  practise  the  self-denying  religion 
of  the  Gospel  ?  Do  men  restrain  and  deny  themselves  be- 
cause this  yields  them  pleasure  ?  Our  Saviour's  argument 
for  self-denial  is  founded  upon  the  certainty  of  future  punish- 
ment. He  says,  it  is  better  to  pluck  out  the  right  eye  and 
cut  off  the  right  hand,  than  to  have  the  whole  body  cast  into 
hell.  But  if  there  be  no  hell  after  death,  and  men  are  rc- 
wardedfor  committing  suicide  and  murder^  by  being  delivered 
out  of  all  trouble  and  admitted  to  perfect  happiness,  where 
is  the  force  of  our  Saviour's  reasoning — where  is  man's  in- 
ducement to  be  virtuous  ? 

Let  it  not  be  said  that  gratitude  to  God  for  his  love  and 
ifiercy  will  constrain  sinners  to  be  religious.  This  is  true  of 
saints  and  angels  ;  but  it  is  futile  to  expect  it  from  the  xm- 
godly.    It  is  enough  for  them,  that  the  mercy  which  saves 


Modern  Universalism*  23 

them  from  hell,  will  likewise,  at  death,  deliver  them  from  all 
sin :  and  they  would  be  very  unwise  to  give  themselves  any 
further  trouble  about  it.  As  long  as  affection  and  gratitude 
cannot  keep  children,  and  servants,  and  subjects,  and  de- 
fendants obedient,  it  is  against  all  reason  and  experience  to 
say  that  men  will,  by  this  means  alone,  be  led  to  embrace  a 
self-denying  religion  and  obey  God. 

The  Universahst  then  can  find  no  refuge  from  the  charge 
of  acting  the  part  of  an  incendiary^  by  preaching  a  doctrine 
that  is  calculated  to  throw  society  into  combustion,  to  destroy 
the  very  foundations  of  civil  order,  and  to  let  out  the  very 
life-blood  of  virtue  and  religion — unless  he  makes  virtue  its 
own  reward,  and  can  prove  that  men  will  become  religious 
merely  for  the  sake  of  that  happiness  which  religion  affords 
its  possessor  in  this  world.  But  where  is  the  libertine  that 
ever  became  chaste  for  the  mere  pleasure  of  chastity — or 
the  drunkard  who  reformed  purely  to  enjoy  the  pleasure  of 
temperance  ?  How  many  worldlings  can  be  found,  who  aban- 
doned their  beloved  idol  solely  for  the  present  gratification 
that  arises  from  an  opposite  course — and  how  many  can  we 
think  would  probably  be  converted  to  God,  if  they  had  no- 
thing else  to  persuade  them  but  the  comfort  which  will  prO' 
iably  flow  from  it  in  this  world?  Future  rewards  and  punish- 
ments have  been  found  suflScient  to  control  the  motives  and 
actions  of  sinful  men ;  but  none  are  found  who  are  virtuous 
purely  for  virtue^s  sake,  and  who  lay  themselves  under  the 
self-denying  restraints  of  religion  merely  for  the  satisfaction 
which  this  yields  in  the  present  hfe,  without  any  regard  to 
the  next. 

The  preceding  views  we  corroborate,  by  the  followingyac/^, 
and  passages  of  Scripture. 

The  UnJversalist  scheme  asserts,  that  vice  and  sin,  of  every 
description,  meet  always,  in  every  instance,  without  one  single 
exception,  with  all  the  punishment  that  God  has  ever  threaten- 
e^^with  all  the  punishment  that  the  welfare  of  society  re- 
quires—and with  a//  the  punishment  that  impartial  distributivs 
justice  demands.  And  this  scheme  further  asserts,  of  courscj 
that  exemption  from  this  punishment,  ajnd  the  positive  sati^fao 


24  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

lions  consequent  upon  virtue  and  piety,  are  never-failing  con- 
sequences of  a  holy  life — and  that  this  constitutes,  in  every 
individualinstance,  the  prescnf  reward  of  religious  obedience. 
Now  this  is  directly  cojitrary  to  both  fact  and  Scripture, 

It  is  contrary  to  fact.  That  virtue  is  not,  in  this  world,  its 
own  reward,  nor  vice  its  own  punisher,  in  any  uniform  or 
consistent  degree,  is  manifest  from  daily  observation.  Are 
there  not  numerous  instances  every  where,  of  unjust,  crueJ, 
licentious,  and  ungodly  persons,  who  live  in  health,  pleasure^ 
and  prosperity  all  their  days ;  and  who  even  pass  into  eter- 
nity zuithout  any  remorse  of  conscience,  and  by  a  short  and  easy 
death. ^  And  are  there  not,  on  the  other  hand,  multitudes  of 
the  most  virtuous  and  pious,  whose  life  is  one  incessant 
struggle  with  misfortune — who  are  set  as  affliction's  mark — 
and  who,  through  poverty,  disease,  sickness,  and  numerous 
other  calamities,  notwithstanding  their  holiness,  are  subjected 
to  a  lingering  life  of  martyrdom  ?  These  facts  are  so  notori- 
ous and  manifest,  that  they  are  the  subject  of  common  and 
every-day  remark :  and  those  who  deny  them  therefore,  de- 
serve no  more  to  be  reasoned  with,  than  those  who,  like 
Hume,  deny  the  existence  of  the  sun  in  the  heavens. 

These  facts  too  have  been  noticed  in  all  ages  of  the  world. 
The  ancient  stoic  philosophers,  who  maintained  stoutly  that 
virtue  was  its  own  reward  in  this  life,  confessed  that  these 
facts  furnished  an  insuperable  objection  to  their  reasonings  : 
and  the  word  of  God  is  upon  this  point  so  explicit,  that  it 
should  silence  at  once  all  further  opposition.  Let  us  quote  a 
few  passages. 

Wherefore,  says  the  prophet,  doth  the  way  of  the  wicked 
prosper  ?  Wherefore  are  all  they  happy  that  deal  very  treach- 
erously ?■= — Says  Job :  The  tabernacles  of  robbers  prosper, 
and  they  that  provoke  God  are  secure.  Wherefore  do  the 
wicked  live,  become  old,  yea,  are  mighty  in  power  ?  Their 
seed  is  established  in  their  sight.  Their  houses  are  safe  from 
fear,  neither  is  the  rod  of  God  upon  them.  They  take  the 
timbrel  and  harp,  and  rejoice.     They  spend  their  days  in 

s  Jer.  xii.  1. 


Modern  Vniverscilism.  25 

wealth,  and  in  a  moment  go  down  to  the  grave.*^ — Says  the 
psaUnist:  My  steps  had  well  nigh  slipped,  when  I  saw  the 
prosperity  of  the  wicked.  For  they  are  not  in  trouble  as  other 
men — they  prosper  in  the  world — and  there  are  no  bands  in 
their  death.  Verily  then  /  have  cleansed  my  heart  and  washed 
my  hands  in  innocency  in  vain.  For  all  the  day  long  have  / 
been  plagued  and  chastened  every  morning.'' — Thus  far  the 
Scriptures. 

If  then  the  wicked  often  live  long,  prosper,  enjoy  them- 
selves, and  die  easy — while  the  righteous,  like  David,  are 
often  plagued  and  chastened  from  day  to  day — it  is  not  true 
that  sin  is  always  fully  punished  in  this  world  ;  and  that  ho- 
liness is,  of  course,  always  rewarded  with  an  exemption  from 
that  punishment.  It  follows  therefore,  that  the  Universalist 
doctrine  is,  in  this  point,  contrary  both  to  fact  and  to  Scrip- 
ture j  and  therefore  a  false  doctrine. 

But  if  wickedness  is  not  so  punished  in  this  life  as  to  deler 
men  from  the  commission  of  it — and  if  holiness  is  not  so  re- 
warded as  to  ensure  its  practice — then  the  Universalist  scheme 
offers  nothing  that  can  induce  us  to  be  virtuous,  and  nothing 
that  can  deter  us  from  a  course  of  sin  :  and  this  doctrine, 
therefore,  stands  fully  chargeable  with  all  the  grossly  immo- 
ral tendencies  and  shocking  consequences  above  described. 
If  this  doctrine  is  preached,  embraced,  and  followed,  there  is 
nothing  to  restrain  men  from  all  that  licentiousness,  and  all 
those  crimes,  to  which  their  passions  naturally  lead  them. 
We  have  no  security  for  our  virtue,  our  property,  our  liberty, 
our  happiness,  or  our  lives.  Nothing  can  preserve  the  peace, 
order,  and  prosperity  of  society,  from  the  baneful  and  ruinous 
effects  of  such  a  licentious  and  demoralizing  scheme  of  reli- 
gion. And  the  enormous  crimes  of  perjury,  suicide,  and 
murder,  will  multiply  upon  us  from  day  to  day,  and  cover  the 
fair  face  of  society  with  the  mantle  of  mourning,  and  the  pall 
of  death ! 

These  conclusions,  which  are  legitimately  drawn  from  the 

preceding  arguments,  we  now  further  support  by  facts,  and 

passages  of  Scripture. 

^  Job  •sii.  6;  and  xxi-  ^  Psa.  IxxiJi, 

4 


26  Remarks  oit  ihe  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

That  the  wdlbeing  of  society  cannot  possibly  be  promoted 
and  preserved  without  the  doctrine  and  the  expectation  of 
future  rewards  and  punishments,  is  a  truth  of  which  mankind 
have  been  convinced  by  the  experience  of  every  age.  All 
the  celebrated  legislators  of  antiquity  laid  this  doctrine  at  the 
foundation  of  their  laws  and  their  governments.  And  though 
same  of  the  philosophers  theorized  themselves  into  dangerous 
systems  of  infidelity,  the  philosophers  generally,  and  magis- 
trates and  legislators  always,  explicitly  maintained  that  the  fear 
of  future  punishment  was  necessary  for  the  welfare  of  society. 
Atheists  and  Materialists  even,  and  freethinkers  of  dififerent 
kinds,  who  disbelieved  a  future  state,  or  denied  that  it  was 
known  before  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  have  nevertheless 
admitted  this  necessity,  and  pretend  that  magistrates  and  le- 
gislators invented  this  doctrine,  because,  without  it,  govern- 
ment could  not  be  upheld^  nor  wicked  men  sufficiently  re- 
strained. 

The  truth  of  this  opinion  is  further  confirmed  by  the  effects, 
which  this  doctrine  of  the  Universalist  has  already,  in  differ- 
ent  ages,  produced  upon  those  who  embraced  it.  For  the 
doctrine  that  there  will  be  no  future  punishment,  is  by  no 
means  new.  The  Sadducees,  among  the  Jews,  held  this  tenet : 
and  the  licentiousness  of  their  lives  furnished  both  a  reason 
for  their  believing  so,  and  a  practical  comment  upon  the  im= 
moral  tendency  of  their  creed.  The  sect  of  the  Epicureans, 
among  the  ancient  heathens,  maintained  this  opinion.  But 
Epicureanism,  in  process  of  time,  became  only  a  name  for 
every  thing  abandoned  and  licentious.  The  founder  and  first 
propagators  of  this  system  were  highly  extolled  for  their  mo- 
rality; and  Epicurus,  like  the  Universalists  of  the  present 
day,  endeavoured  so  to  explain  his  system  as  to  guard  against 
perversion  and  licentiousness.  But  all  in  vain.  Depriving 
men  of  the  wholesome  restraints  which  the  fear  of  future 
punishment  imposes  upon  their  conduct,  is  like  depriving  a 
vessel  at  sea  of  its  rudder.  They  will  readily  yield  to  every 
breeze  of  inclination,  and  be  carried  about  by  every  gust  of 
passion.  The  Epicureans,  through  the  natural  influence  of 
their  doctrines,  became  so  disorderly  and  abandoned,  that 


Modern  UnivcrsaUsm,  27 

the  public  authorities  actually  expelled  Ihem  from  several  cities 
and  republics  ;  and  decreed  them  to  be  the  pests  of  the  youth, 
and  a  nuisance  to  society.*" 

This  leading  doctrine  of  the  Universalists,  that  there  will 
be  no  punishment  after  death,  is  likewise  held  by  a  large  por- 
tion of  the  Hindoos,^  and  by  a  numerous  and  learned  sect 
among  the  Chinese.  That  sect  do  most  strenuously  iiicukate 
the  duties  of  morality,  and  yet  every  species  of  injustice  and 
licentiousness  prevails  among  them.  A  learned  Chinese  re- 
marked, that  the  multitude  among  them  was  not  encouraged 
to  practise  virtue,  because  they  had  nothing  to  fear  in  another 
world;  and  he  therefore  commended  a  certain  other  sect  for 
preaching  up  heaven  and  hell.'* 

The  ancient  Stoics  too  excluded  from  their  system  the  fear 
of  God  and  of  future  punishment ;  maintaining  that  virtue  is 
its  own  reward,  and  that  the  wicked  are  punished  in  propor- 
tion to  their  sins  in  this  world.  But  eminent  and  admired  as 
this  sect  was,  for  the  excellency  and  dignity  of  their  moral 
precepts,  they  -could  not  resist  the  strong  tendency  which 
their  system  had  to  licentiousness  ;  and  as  is  the  practice  with 
ike  above-mentioned  sect  in  China,  multitudes  among  them 
committed  suicide,  that  they  might  escape  out  of  the  evils  of 
the  present,  into  the  happiness  of  a  future  world.  The  Indian 
philosophers,  and  many  of  our  modern  infidels,  have  advo- 
cated suicide  upon  precisely  the  same  principles.^ 

It  app€ars  then  from  these  facts,  that  the  leading  doctrine 
of  the  Universalist  has  long  ago  been  maintained,  both  among 
Jews  and  heathens — that  those  who  maintained  this  doctrine 
have  generally  been  unprincipled  and  licentious — and  that  all 
the  shocking  consequences  we  have  ascribed  to  it,  have  at  all 
times  flowed  from  it,  to  such  an  extent  even  as  to  cause  the 
magistrates  to  banish  those  ancient  Universalists  from  their 
dominions,  and  brand  them  as  pests  and  nuisances  in  society. 
And  lest  it  should  be  supposed  that  this  doctrine  is  not  liable 
to  such  abuse  in  the  Christian  world,  we  would  refer  you  to 

f  Leland's  Advantage  and  Necessity,  &c.  vol.  ii.  part  2,  chap.  6. 
s  Rees'  Cyclop,  art-  Shaster.  ^  Leland,  vol.  il.  part  3,  chap. 3. 

*  Leland,  part  2. 


28  Remarks  on  the  clislmguishing  Doctrine  of 

the  tenets  and  history  of  the  Simonians,  Gnostics,  and  Nico- 
laitans — sects  of  Christian  heretics,  who  began  to  appear  be- 
fore the  dealh  of  the  Apostle  John,  and  who  subsisted,  under 
different  names,  for  several  centuries  afterwards.  These 
maintained  that  simple  faith  in  Christ,  and  knowledge  of  the 
Gospel,  were  the  only  things  necessary  to  salvation  ;  and  that 
those  who  possessed  these  requisites  had  nothing  to  fear  here- 
after. Believing  therefore,  as  the  Rellyan  system  of  Univer- 
salism  teaches,  that  Christ  had,  without  any  other  conditions  to 
be  performed  on  their  part,  purchased  everlasting  salvation  for 
all  such,  they  gave  themselves  up  to  every  species  of  wicked' 
7iess  and  profligacy  J 

These  facts  then  prove  to  a  demonstration^  that  a  system  of 
religion,  which  abolishes  the  principle  of  fear  and  the  doc- 
trine of  future  punishment,  only  delivers  its  professors  over 
to  the  most  unbounded  licentiousness ;  and  verities  the  cha- 
racter of  the  "  madman  who  scatters  firebrands,  arrows,  and 
"  death'"'  among  mankind. 

And  can  such  a  system  of  religion,  then,  present  a  single 
claim  to  our  regard  ?  Must  it  not,  at  first  view,  be  condemned 
as  one  of  the  most  dangerous  and  execrable  of  heresies  ?  Will 
it  not  carry  a  moral  pestilence  and  desolation  wherever  it 
takes  its  march  ?  And  had  we  not  better  let  loose  upon  our 
fellow-creatures,  in  a  tenfold  degree,  all  the  physical  evils  to 
which  flesh  is  heir,  than  to  countenance  or  to  propagate  a 
doctrine  that  carries  in  its  train  consequences,  the  mere 
thought  of  which  is  enough  to  chill  the  blood,  and  make  the 
heart  to  shudder  !* 

J  Mosheim's  Hist.  vol.  i.  King  on  the  Creed,  and  any  orthodox  commen» 
tator  on  Rev.  ii,  2  Pet.  ii.  and  Jude;  but  particularly  Whitby,  Hammond, 
Poole,  and  Macknigbt.  ^  Prov.  xxvi.  18. 

•  The  old  and  the  new  Universalism  differ  as  much  as  day  and  night ; 
since  the  one  denies  all  punishment  after  death,  and  the  other  teaches  that 
all  the  wicked  will  be  punished  hereafter  in  proportion  to  their  sins.  But 
still  even  the  old  Universalism  is  chargeable  with  a  licentious  tendency  ; 
and  the  preceding  objections,  therefore,  lie,  though  not  with  equal,  yet 
with  great  force,  against  the  old  Univcrsalist  doctrine.  For  tlie  wicked 
not  only  mca/,  but  will  naturally  be  led  to  reason  tlius:  "  I  feel  an  uncon- 
"  querable  propensity  to  my  sinful  practices.    They  yield  me  great  grati- 


Modern  Universalism,  29 

The  facts  and  arguments  already  adduced  under  our  first 
head,  are  sufficient  to  prove  that  the  distinguishing  doctrine 
of  Universalism  cannot  possibly  be  true,  but  must  necessarily 
be  false.  But  we  think  it  proper,  nevertheless,  to  support 
the  unanswerable  deductions  of  reason,  upon  this  last  point, 
by  the  paramount  authority  of  Holy  Scriptures. 

We  observe  then,  that  a  doctrine  which  naturally  leads  to 
irreligion  and  licentiousness,  cannot  possibly  be  the  doctrine 
of  Scripture.     Because  the  main  purpose  for  which  the  whole 
of  Scripture  has  been  given,  is  to  bring  men  over  from  sin  to 
holiness.  All  its  precepts,  all  its  promises,  and  all  its  threaten- 
ings  have  but  one  object  in  view,  and  that  is  to  reclaim  men 
from  the  error  of  their  ways,  to  serve  the  living  God.  All  the 
ordinances,  all  the  institutions,  and  all  the  duties  of  religion, 
both  in  public  and  in  private,  aim  at  promoting  godliness. 
Even  the  very  miracles  that  have  been  wrought,  the  prophe- 
cies that  have  been  delivered,  the  distinguished  blessings  that 
have  been  vouchsafed,  and  the  judgments  that  have  been  in- 
flicted from  age  to  age  upon  the  Church,  have  all  been  de» 
signed  to  discountenance  irreligion,  and  promote  the  cause  of 
virtue  and  piety.     Nay,  all  ministers,  like  Paul,  are  sent  to 
"  turn  men  from  darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power  of 

"  ficatlon.   I  cannot  therefore  consent  to  give  them  up,  and  subject  myself 
*'  to  the  self-denying  duties  and  restraints  of  the  Gospel.    Our  heavenly 
«'  Father  is  merciful — nay, '  God  is  love.*    I  throw  myself,  therefore,  upon 
"  his  boundless  compassion.    He  cannot  but  pity  his  weak,  tempted,  and 
*•  erring  creature.     Were  future  punishn»ent  to  be  endless,  I  should  indeed 
*•  not  reason  thus.    But  it  comes  from  a  Father,  whose  bowels  yearn  with 
**  compassion  over  his  children — it  will  some  time  or  other  have  an  end — 
**  and  after  that,  I  shall  be  happy  for  ever  and  ever  in  the  kingdom  of 
"  heaven.    So  that,  let  me  act  as  I  please,  /  shall  after  all  be  saved,  and 
*•  have  an  etermty  of  happiness  to  enjoy,  as  well  as  the  holiest  of  Christians." 
This  reasoning  is  perfectly  natural  and  consistent  in  those  who  believe, 
like  some  of  the  ancient  heathen,  that  the  wicked  will  be  cast  into  the 
fires  of  hell  till  they  are  burnt  white,  after  which  they  will  be  taken  to 
heaven.    And  we  submit  it  to  the  reader,  whether  this  doctrine  of  purga- 
tory, whether  held  by  heathens  or  Roman  Catholics,  Unitarians  or  Univer- 
salists,  does  not  in  a  great  measure  set  men  loose  from  the  salutary  re- 
straints of  the  fear  of  future  punishments,  tend  to  make  them  easy  in  their 
sins,  and  therefor?  thus  far  deserve  the  charge  ofbein^  a  Ucentioua  doctrine. 


30  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

"  Satan  to  serve  the  living  God'" — the  "  word'"'  or  "  truth''' 
of  God  is  expressly,  by  our  Saviour,  declared  to  be  the  great 
means  of  our  sanctijlcation,"^  the  means  which  God  uses  for 
the  express  purpose  of  making  us  holy — the  influences  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  are  given  to  "  cause''^  us  "  to  walk  in  the  way  of 
"  God's  commandments, "  to  "  enlighten,  to  convince  of  sin, 
*'  to  change  our  hearts,  and  sanclifif  us  to  obedience''''^ — and  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  shed  his  blood  for  us,  "  that  he  might  re- 
"  deem  us  from  all  iniquity,  and  purify  unto  himself  a  pecu- 
"  liar  people,  zealous  of  good  works.""  Accordingly  we  are 
told  that  the  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect,  converting  the  souIp 
—that  the  Gospel  is  that  truth  which  is  according  to  godliness, 
and  in  order  to  produce  godliness<i — and  that  "  all  Scripture 
"  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine, 
"  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in  righteousness : 
"  that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished 
"  unto  all  good  works."' 

In  fine,  Scripture  expressly  asserts  that  "  without  holiness 
"  no  one  shall  see  the  Lore?"'— no  one  shall  enter  heaven.  And 
as  the  Apostle  assures  us*  that  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against 
God — that  it  cannot  possibly,  in  its  unconverted  state,  be  sub- 
ject or  obedient  to  the  holy  law  of  a  holy  God — that,  as  long 
as  our  minds  and  hearts  are  under  the  influence  of  our  bodily 
inclinations  and  passions,  we  are  spiritually  dead — and  that 
unless  we  become  sanctified  through  the  obedience  of  faith, 
the  second  death,  death  everlasting,  must  be  our  portion  :  as 
the  Apostle  plainly  teaches  all  this,  so  it  may  be  proved  to  a 
demonstration,  that  unholy  beings,  who  live  and  die  in  their 
sins,  cannot  possibly  he  admitted  to  heaven — or  if  even  admit- 
ted, cannot  possibly  be  happy  there.  Can  those  who  are  desti- 
tute of  all  holy  desires,  dispositions,  principles,  and  affections 
— those  who  are  averse  to  pious  thoughts,  to  religious  exer- 
cises, to  godly  company  and  conversation — can  such  persons 
find  happiness  in  the  holy  society  and  employments  of  a  holy 

I  Acts  xxvi.  18.  ni  John  xvii.  17. 

n  Ezek.  xxxvi.  27;  Eph.  i.  18 ;  John  xvi.  8;  and  1  Pet.  i.  2. 

o  Tit.  ii.  14.       P  Psa.  six.        1  Tit.  i.  1.  See  Macknight  on  the  Epistles. 

f  2  Tim.  iii.  16, 17.  «  Heb.  xii.  14.  »  Rom.  viii.  4,  8;c. 


Modern  Umversalism,  31: 

heaven  ?  Can  they  be  happy  in  the  midst  of  what  they  hate  ? 
Utterly  unqualified  for  such  things,  averse  to  them,  and  dis- 
gusted with  them  before  death— is  death,  whether  they  will  or 
no,  to  work  a  physical  change  upon  their  natures,  and  fit  them 
for  heaven  ?     This  cannot  be,  because  it  is  contrary  to  what 
the  Apostle  teaches,  that  we  must  ourselves  "  roork  out  our 
"  own  salvation,'*''     If  then  we  die  in  an  unholy  state,  we  are 
Jit  and  disposed  only  for  unholy  society  and   employments. 
Could  the  ungodly  be  admitted  to  heaven,  heaven  would  dis- 
gust them :  they  would  be  out  of  their  native  element,  and 
miserable  in  the  midst  of  bliss.     Let  but  the  wicked  on  earth 
be  required  to  spend  all  their  time  in  religious  conversation, 
and  in  the  holy  exercises  of  private  and  public  worship,  and 
it  would  be  an  intolerable  restraint — it  would  make  them  ex- 
tremely unhappy.     How  then,  if  their  natures  remain  un- 
changed and  unsanctified,   could  they  possibly  enjoy  them- 
selves in  the  presence  of  God  ?     The  thing  is  physically  im- 
possible.    It  is  absurd,  and  implies  a  contradiction.     That  the 
ungodly  must  necessarily  be  born  again  of  the  Spirit — be 
converted,  become  new  creatures,  before  they  can  possibly 
be  saved — is  just  as  certain  and  manifest,  as  that  the  darkness 
of  night  must  be  overcome  before  we  can  enjoy  the  broad 
blaze  of  day.  We  cannot  be  happy  in  the  midst  of  what  is  dis- 
agreeable and  painful  to  us.     Carry  the  saint  to  hell,  and  by 
being  conformed  to  the  image  of  God,  by  holding  communion 
with  his  Saviour,  by  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  a  local 
and  present  heaven  will  be  opened  in  his  soul.    God,  to  him, 
will  be  every  where ;  and  every  where  a  source  of  bliss. 
Raise  the  ungodly  to  heaven,  and  the  very  sanctity  of  the 
place,  the  society,  and  the  employments,  would  fill  him  with 
terror:  and  as  sinners  do  on  earth,  he  would  flee  the  society 
of  the  blessed  ;  or  he  would,  under  the  consciousness  of  his 
guilt,  sink  by  his  own  weight  to  the  regions  of  the  damned. 
A  very  hell  would  be  opened  in  his  own  soul. 

If  then  the  word  of  God,  the  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  the 
institutions  and  outward  duties  of  reliu;ion,  the  influences  of 
the  Spirit,  and  the  atoning  sacrifice  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
have  all  been  given  and  appointed  for  the  express  purpose  of 


32  Remarks  on  the  disliiiguishing  Doctrine  of 

making  us  holy — if  the  Gospel  is  that  truth  which  is  designed 
and  has  a  tendency  to  produce  godliness — and  if,  without  ho- 
liness, it  is  physically  impossible  we  should  be  happy  ;  then 
that  doctrine  which  does  not  conduce  to  this  end,  bat  leads 
to  licentiousness,  must  necessarily  be  false ;  because  it  is 
directly  contrary  to  the  intention  of  God,  and  to  the  express  de- 
sign of  revelation — which  is  to  make  us  holy  here,  that  we 
may  be  happy  hereafter. 

This  may  be  directly  and  briefly  proved  from  Scripture  as 
follows.  St.  Paul  says,  that  those  who  "  consent  not  to  die 
"  wholesome  commandments  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  to 
"  the  doctrine  xohick  is  according  to  godliness,  are  proud,  know- 
"  ing  nothing,  but  doting  (brainsick,  distempered,  or  luao) 
"  about  questions  and  strifes  of  words.""  St.  Jude  says,  that 
those  who  "  turn  the  grace  of  God  into  lasciviousntss,"* 
(that  is,  those  who,  like  the  Nicolaitan?,  so  interpret  God's 
mercy  as  to  promise  us  salvation  whether  we  live  a  sinful  or 
holy  life,)  are  ungodly  men,  upon  whom  God  will  execute 
judgment.  And  Holy  Scripture  declares,  that  "  those  who 
"justify  the  wicked  are  an  abomination  to  the  IjOrd."y  Now 
Universalism  teaches  that  the  miscreant,  who  lives  a  life  of 
impurity,  who,  after  having  defiled  and  robbed,  murders  to 
escape  detection  ;  and  who,  upon  being  discovered,  cuts  the 
throats  of  his  wife  and  children,  and  then  blows  his  own  brains 
out ;  will  nevertheless  escape  all  future  punishment,  and  go  to 
heaven  just  as  soon  as  the  greatest  saint* 

If  this  is  a  wholesome  doctrine,  or  a  doctrine  according  to 
godliness,  then  wilful  murder  is  innocent,  and  arsenic  is 
wholesome  food.  If  this  is  not  the  heinous  sin  of  turning  the 
grace  of  God  into  lasciviousness,  then  no  such  sin  was  ever 
committed.  And  if  this  is  not,  to  all  intents  and  purposes, 
justifying  the  roicked,  there  never  was  a  wicked  man  on  earth; 

"  Be  not  deceived ;  God  is  not  mocked :  whatsoever  a  man 
"  soweth,  that  shall  he  also  reap."^ — "  Indignation  and  wrath, 
"  tribulation  and  anguish,  shall  be  upon  every  soul  of  man 


Ti  1  Tim.  vi.  3.  See  Macknight.  x  See  Whitby  and  Hammond, 

y  Prov.  xvii.  15.  z  Gal.  vi-  7. 


Modern  UniversaUsm,  33 

*'  that  doeth  evil."* — "  God  will  recompense  every  man  ac- 
"  cording  to  his  loor^j. '"'—*'  Repent  therefore,  and  turn  your- 
"  selves  from  all  your  transgressions;  that  iniquity  may  not 
"  be  your  ruin.'"^— "  For  w^ithout  holiness  no  one  shall  see 
"  the  Lord."'' — And  "  though  we,  or  an  angel  from  heaven, 
"  preach  anr/  other  gospel,  let  him  be  acciirsed,''^^ 

Before  we  quit  this  subject,  we  would  briefly  advert  to  the 
inferences  that  may  reasonably  be  drawn  from  the  doctrine  of 
the  Universalist.  If  that  doctrine  be  true,  man  is  not  in  a 
state  of  trial  for  another  world.  Do  what  he  will,  he  shall  be 
saved.  No  persons  can  possibly  be  under  sufficient  induce- 
ments to  perform  any  of  the  self-denying  duties  of  religion, 
which  are  disagreeable  to  flesh  and  blood  :  there  is  very  little 
reason  to  preach  the  Gospel,  except  for  the  purpose  of  setting 
men  loose  from  remorse  of  conscience,  and  from  the  fears  of 
hell  and  damnation.  The  Apostles,  Disciples,  and  primitive 
Christians  were  a  set  of  fools  ;  for  they  deliberately  subjected^ 
themselves  to  poverty,  infamy,  and  the  loss  of  every  comfort 
— and  exposed  themselves,  during  a  long  Ife,  to  labours, 
dangers,  sufferings,  and  death  itself,  in  its  most  shocking  and 
appalhng  forms  ;  when,  by  renouncing  the  Gospel,  and  living 
under  their  former  religion,  they  might  have  passed  through 
life  without  any  of  these  evils — or  when,  by  an  act  of  suicide, 
they  might  at  once  have  escaped  all  their  troubles,  and  gone 
to  a  place  of  everlasting  rest  and  happiness.  Nay,  the  an- 
cient Epicureans,  the  lovers  of  pleasure  and  of  the  world 

those  whose  maxim  is.  Let  us  eat,  drink,  and  be  merry 

those  who  refuse  to  receive  or  to  seek  for  religious  instruc- 
tion, upon  the  principle,  that  the  less  we  know  of  our  duty,  the 
less  will  our  conscience  disturb  its — and  those  who  lull  their 
consciences  asleep,  or  drown  their  cares  in  wine  and  jollity— 
these,  after  all,  upon  the  Universalist  scheme,  take  the  wisest 
course,  and  set  the  best  example  :  for  since  we  are  sure  of 
heaven  after  death,  the  most  comfortable  way  of  getting- 
through  life  is  the  wisest  and  the  best.     Indeed,  upon  this 

«  Rom.  ii.  8.  •>  Matt.  xvi.  27".  c  Ezek.  xviii.  30. 

<i  Heb,  xii.  14.  e  Cal.  i.  8. 

5 


S4  Remarks  on  the  dislinguishins  Doctrine  of 

principle,  the  ancient  Epicureans,  who  said  pleasure  was  the 
chief  good,  came  nearer  to  the  truth,  than  the  Bible  does  !  And 
if  the  Bible  really  teaches  the  Universalist  doctrine,  the  whole 
Christian  world  have  been  extremely  fortunate  in  never  making 
the  discovery  before — and  now,  since  it  has  been  made,  they 
had  better  all  unite  in  discarding  revelation,  and  burning  up 
every  copy  of  the  Scriptures  on  earth ;  since  they  inculcate 
so  disorganizing  and  licentious  a  tenet.  For  natural  religion, 
which  has  always  taught  the  doctrine  of  future  rewards  and 
punishments,  is  far  more  safe  and  beneficial  to  society  than 
the  religion  of  the  Universalist  can  be  :  and  our  government, 
like  the  government  of  revolutionary  France,  had  better, 
therefore,  at  once,  declare  the  religion  of  the  Bible  to  be  a 
pernicious  forgery,  and  an  imposition  upon  mankind ;  before 
we  are  brought  into  such  a  state  of  dissoluteness  of  principles 
and  morals,  that,  like  the  ancient  Epicureans,  the  nation  wiJl 
be  obliged  to  spue  us  out,  and  banish  us  from  their  territories. 
In  fine.  Atheism  itself  is  not  as  bad  in  its  consequences  as 
Universalism  ;  for  it  presents  no  temptation  to  suicide ;  and 
were  it  preached  over  the  country,  ievr  would  embrace  it, 
because  it  is  so  comfortless  and  abhorrent  a  doctrine  :  where- 
as, would  their  reason  and  conscience  only  permit  it,  all  man- 
kind would  flock  in  to  the  belief  of  the  Universalist.* 

•  We  feel  that,  in  making  these  and  other  similar  statements,  we  laBoup 
under  a  peculiar  disadvantage.  The  character  and  tendency  of  Universal- 
ism is  so  monstrously  absurd  and  pernicious,  that  when  we  exhibit  them* 
in  their  true  colours,  the  mind  of  the  reader  will  unconsciously  recoiL 
The  first  impression  is  likely  to  be,  "  This  is  too  monstrous  to  be  true, 
"  Tlie  writer  must  be  guilty  of  misrepresentation,  or  at  least  of  exagg-era- 
•'  tion.  If  Universalism  was  as  bad  as  here  exhibited,  it  never  could  have 
"  found  one  in  the  shape  of  a  reasonable  being  that  would  have  embraced 
"  it."  For  truth's  sake,  and  for  God's  sake,  we  beg  the  reader  not  to  suffer 
his  feelings,  his  prejudices,  or  his  imagination,  to  run  away  ivith  his  reason. 
The  reveries  of  Hume,  of  the  Atheist,  and  of  the  Pantheistical  divines  of 
Germany,  are  equally  flagrant  in  their  absurdity ;  and  yet  multitudes  have 
embraced  them.  Let  history  and  experience,  the  character  of  human  na- 
ture, the  arguments  and  the  facts  we  have  adduced,  be  all  taken  into  the 
account,  and  we  are  confident  that  an  unimpassioned  examination  of  the  sub- 
ject, will  lead  the  reader  to  bear  us  out  in  all  our  remarks  and  all  our  con- 
clusi&iis.    Some  of  our  expressions  may  indeed  be  peculiarly  glowing  and 


Modern  Universalism.  35 

If  we  had  no  other  arguments  to  bring  against  the  leading 
doctrine  of  the  Universahst,  what  has  been  said  would  be 
sufficient  to  condemn  and  prove  it  false  ;  and  sufficient  like- 
wise to  show,  that  every  believer  in  divine  revelation  should 
Condemn  and  oppose  it,  as  the  oflTspring  of  Satan,  the  de- 
stroyer of  souls.  For  Universalism  is  as  much  opposed  to 
Christianity,  in  its  character,  tendency,  an<l  effects,  as  darkness 
is  to  light.  They  cannot  stand  together.  If  the  one  be  true, 
the  other  must  be  false  :  for  if  not  false,  the  religion  of  the 
Bible,  tinder  this  aspect,  is  zvorse  than  Deism — is  zvorse  than 
ji  theism. 

As,  however,  error  is  very  tenacious,  and  has  many  lives — ■ 
as  many  cannot,  or  will  not  see,  till  the  matter  be  plain  as  a 
sunbeam — as  an  argument  conclusive  to  one,  may  not  be  so 
to  another — as  prejudice,  if  it  surrenders  at  all,  never  sur- 
renders until  it  be  beaten  from  every  intrenchment,  and  de- 
prived of  every  place  that  offers  the  semblance  of  refuge — as, 
upon  important  subjects,  everywriter  ought  to  enlarge  and 
particularize,  until  he  has  made  it  plain  to  the  lowest  under- 
standing— and  as  a  weak  or  partial  defence  of  truth  only  tends 
to  betray  it,  and  to  furnish  fancied  cause  of  triumph  to  its  ad- 
versaries, many  of  whom  cannot  feel  the  force  of  an  argu- 
ment unless  it  knocks  them  down — we  proceed  to  observe, 
that  all  consistent  Christians  will/ce/  bound  to  reject  and  con- 
demyi  the  leading  doctrine  of  the  Universalist. 

2dly.  Because  it  directly  contradicts  the  belief  of  all  man- 
kind. There  ar€  indeed,  as  already  noticejiJ,  some  exceptions. 

-empliatic ;  but  it  is  a  good  maxim,  always  to  give  to  truth  all  the  advant- 
age she  can  derive  from  strong  language ;  and  we  know  not  how  to  speak 
of  such  a  subject  in  more  measured  terms.  We  fear  tnanij  will  not  estimate 
its  enormity  aright,  unless,  in  the  plainest  and  strongest  language  imagin- 
able, we  point  out  its  absurdity  and  in>piety :  and  if,  while  discussing  this 
subject,  we  use  not  every  means  of  warning  the  unwary  against,  end  deter- 
ring the  wicked  from  a  doctrine  of  such  deep-toned  horror,  we  fear  lest 
Almighty  God  should  regard  us  as  a  partaker  in  the  guilt  of  those  who 
leave  their  fellow-creatures  to  perish  in  error,  and  for  •'  lack  of  knowledge." 
At  every  turn,  therefore,  God  willing,  we  would  put  our  heel  upon  tii^ 
viper,  and  crush  him  to  death. 


36  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

Some  have  been  found,  in  different  ages,  who  denied  future 
punishment;  but  exceptions,  as  all  admit,  prove  the  general 
ride.  The  mass  of  mankind,  in  all  ages  and  among  all  na- 
tions,  have  believed  in  a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punish- 
ments. From  the  earliest  ages  of  the  world  concerning  which 
we  have  any  account,  this  has  been  the  traditionary  faith  of 
our  species.  The  most  ancient  writers,  after  the  most  care- 
ful research,  assure  us  that  this  was,  among  all  nations,  the 
common  popular  belief  embraced  by  the  ignorant  as  well  as 
the  learned — they  trace  it  up  to  time  immemorial,  without 
assigning  it  any  human  origin — they  inform  us  it  was  never 
doubted,  except  by  some  abandoned  wretches,  who  ivished  it 
to  be  false  ;  and  by  some  philosophers,  who  speculated  them- 
selves out  of  the  belief  of  this  doctrine — who  transmitted 
their  creed  to  their  disciples,  and  who  confessed  that,  in  de- 
nying the  doctrine  of  future  punishment,  they  went  contrary 
to  the  universal  consent  of  all  nations,  and  to  the  common, 
traditionary,  immemorial  faith  of  all  ages/ 

All  the  roorld  then  stands  arrayed  against  this  new  doctrine 
of  the  Universalist,  Every  sect  in  the  Christian  Church  would 
reject  it  with  abhorrence — even  all  the  Universalists  of  the 
old  school,  from  Origen  down  to  Chauncey,  Winchester,  and 
Scarlet :  for  they  believe  as  firmly  in  the  propriety,  justice^ 
and  necessity  of  temporary  punishment  after  death,  as  the 
Christian  Church  generally  believes  in  the  propriety,  justice, 
and  necessity  of  eternal  punishment.  In  this  point  too,  with 
the  exception  of  the  ancient  Sadducees,  the  Jewish  Church 
has  in  all  ages  agreed  with  the  Christian.  The  Mahomme- 
dans  hold  the  same  doctrine ;  and  all  the  heathen  nations,  of 
modern  as  well  as  of  ancient  times.  Nay,  with  few  excep- 
tions, all  the  Deiils  in  Christendom  will  condemn  the  distin- 
guishing doctrine  of  the  Universalist :  for  it  is  as  much  against 
their  creed  as  against  ours. 

Now  it  is  a  rule  universally  admitted  by  all  who  believe  in 
divine  revelation,  that  a  doctrine,  embraced  among  all  na- 
tions, by  all  men,  and  at  all  times,  must  necessarily  be  a  true 

ff  Leland's  Advantage  and  Necessity,  Stillingfleet'a  Origines,  Bryant's 
Mythology,  and  Works  of  G.  S.  Faber. 


Modern  Universalixm,  37 

doctrine.  *  This  rule  is  just  as  conclusive  againsf  tlie  Univer- 
salist  doctrine,  as  against  the  reveries  of  Hume,  when  he  de- 
nies the  evidence  of  our  senses  :  and  it  therefore  proves  that 
a  helief  in  future  rewards  and  punishments  is  the  true  belief. 
Had  this  belief  only  been  found  in  modern,  and  not  in  ancient 
times — or  among  learned,  and  not  among  barbarous  nations— 
or  in  certain  sections  of  the  globe,  and  not  in  all  countries  ; 
it  might  have  been  ascribed  to  chance,  caprice,  prudence, 
state  policy,  or  priestcraft :  but  now,  since  it  has  been  uni- 
versal—since no  ancient  nation  was  ever  found  where  it  did 
not  prevail,  and  no  time  can  be  tixed  upon  when  it  was  not 
every  where  the  common  belief — and  since  the  most  ancient 
writers  can  give  no  other  account  of  it,  than  that  it  was  handed 
down  from  time  immemoria' — its  existence  cannot  possibly 
be  accounted  for  in  any  other  way,  than  by  admitting  the 
truth  of  the  doctrine  of  future  rewards  and  punishments. 

For  the  argument  stands  thus  :  That  which  has  been  be- 
lieved by  all,  every  where,  and  at  all  times,  must  necessarily 
either  be  the  dictate  of  reason  and  common  sense,  and  the  re- 
sult of  every  one's  experience ;  or  else  it  must  be  the  conse- 
quence of  a  divine  revelation^  made  to  our  first  parents  or  to 
Noah,  and  through  them  handed  down  to  all  the  nations  of 
the  earth.     In  no  other  -way  can  we  possibly  account  for  the 
universal  belief  in  fuXure  rewards  and  punishments.     Upon 
every  other  supposition,  that  belief  is  an  effect  without  a  suf- 
ficient cause  ;  and  those  who  admit  an  effect  without  an  ade- 
quate cause,  admit  what  is  absurd  both  in  religion  and  philo- 
sophy.    How  then  will  the  Universalist  account  for  this  uni- 
versal belief?     Is  it  the  consequence  of  revelations  made  to 
man  in  the  first  ages  of  the  world  ?   Then  he  admits  that  God 
has  revealed  the  doctrine  of  future  rewards  and  punishments, 
and  that  his  own  doctrine  is  contrary  to  God's  revealed  will ! 
Or  have  all  mankind  believed  it,  because  the  reason  and  com- 
mon  sense  of  every  individual  teaches  him  to  believe  it? 
Then  the  doctrine  of  the  Universalist  is  contrary  to  the  rea- 
son and  common  sense  of  all  mankind— and  then,  if  Universal- 
ism  be  true,  God  has  made  all  men  so,  as  naturally  to  lead 
•'hem  into  the  belief  of  a  lie  !    Here  are  the  two  horns  of  a 


3S  Remarks  on  the.  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

dilemma ;  and  the  Universalist  may  hang  himself  upon  which^ 
ever  he  pleases. 

Here  it  is  necessary  to  observe,  that  some  Universalists 
deny  that  the  Jews  had  any  knowledge  of  a  future  state  before 
the  time  of  our  Saviour  ;  and  others,  admitting  that  they  had 
some  knowledge  of  a  future  life,  of  course  deny  either  that 
they  believed  in  future  punishment,  or  else,  if  they  did,  main- 
tain that  that  belief  was  horrowed  from  the  heathen.  To  this 
we  answer— 

1st.  The  main  question  is  not,  whether  God  revealed  the 
doctrine  of  future  rewards  and  punishments  to  the  Old  Tes- 
tament Church.  For  even  if — which  we  by  no  means  grant — ■ 
even  if  the  Jews  had  no  knowledge  of  it,  it  is  enough  for  our 
purpose  if  this  doctrine  is  revealed  in  the  New  Testament. 

2d!y.  Since,  as  has  been  abundantly  proved  by  Leland, 
Stillingfleet.  and  others,  all  the  rest  of  the  ancient  world  had 
the  knowledge  of  a  future  life,  it  would  be  strange  indeed  if 
the  Jews  alone,  Godh  own  people,  were  an  exception !  And 
since  all  the  rest  believed  in  future  rewards  and  punishments, 
can  we  suppose  that  the  Jews  had  no  such  belief?  How  is 
this  either  probable  or  possible  ?     For, 

3dly.  The  foregoing  argument,  to  prove  the  doctrine  of 
future  punishment  from  the  universal  belief  of  it,  should  con- 
vince us  that  the  Jews  and  Israelites  could  not  be  ignorant  of 
it.  For  it  is  manifest  from  reason,  from  experience,  and  from 
the  positive  testimony  of  the  most  ancient  writers,  that  the 
doctrine  of  future  rewards  and  punishments  was  not  disco- 
vered  by  human  reason,  nor  invented  by  human  policy— that 
it  is  not  a  doctrine  which  reason  and  common  sense  would 
teach  every  man — and  that  its  universal  reception,  therefore, 
in  the  earliest  ages  of  the  world,  must  necessarily  be  owing  to 
its  having  been  revealed  from  heaven,  transmitted  from  father 
to  son,  and  from  generation  to  generation,  and  thus  spread, 
hy  natural  inheritance  and  tradition,  wherever  the  descend- 
ants of  Adam  and  of  Noah  were  scattered  abroad.  In  this 
case,  it  is  as  certain  that  the  ancient  Church  of  Judah  and 
Israel  believed  in  future  punishment,  as  that  any  of  the  other 


Modern  Univtrsalism,  33 

nations  believed  it ;  for  it  was  one  article  of  their  universal 
traditionary  faith.  ' 

4thly.  That  the  Jews  actually  did  believe  this  doctrine  in 
the  time  of  our  Saviour — that  they  had  then  believed  it  from 
time  immemorial — and  that  they,  as  well  as  the  Gentiles, 
ascribed  this  doctrine  originally  to  divine  revelation— is  mani- 
fest not  only  from  the  works  already  quoted,  but  also  from 
the  writings  of  Philo  and  Josephus,  two  distinguished  Jews — 
is  manifest  from  the  apocryphal  books  bound  up  with  some 
of  our  Bibles — and  is  manifest  from  the  Targums,  or  com- 
mentaries of  Onkelos,  Jonathan,  and  others,  upon  the  various 
books  of  the  Old  Testament.  Most  of  these  works  wer© 
written  before  or  during  the  time  of  our  Saviour,  and  they 
prove  that  Jews  and  Gentiles  had  but  one  belief  on  the  sub- 
ject of  future  rewards  and  punishments.  These  facts  are  so 
notorious^  that  we  shall  not  slay  to  make  any  quotations  to 
prove  them ;  especially  since  the  most  distinguished  of  our 
American  Universalist  writers  admits  them  to  be  true. 

5thly.  The  Jews  and  Israelites  were  the  descendants  of 
Abraham.  Abraham  was  a  Chaldean.  He  and  his  posterity 
sojourned  for  many  hundred  years  among  the  Phenicians  and 
Egyptians ;  and  all  these  three  ancient  nations  believed  in 
future  punishment.  The  ancient  mysteries  are  traced  up  to  a 
very  remote  antiquity  among  these  and  many  other  nations, 
and  the  doctrine  of  future  rewards  and  punishments  was  one 
of  the  doctrines  taught  in  those  mysteries,^  The  Brachmans, 
Persians,  Arabians,  and  Sabeans,  are  generally  believed  to 
have  been  the  descendants  of  Abraham ;  and  they  all  be- 
lieved in  future  punishment.  It  is  therefore  highly  probable 
that  Abraham  and  all  his  posterity,  the  Israelites  and  the 
Jews,  agreed  with  all  the  rest  of  the  world,  and  held,  in  all 
ages,  the  doctrine  of  a  future  state  of  retribution. 

6thly.  As  no  facts  can  be  brought  to  prove  it,  so  no  rea- 
sons whatever  can  be  given  to  make  it  probable,  that  the  an- 
cient Jews  and  Israelites  did  not  believe  as  the  rest  of  man» 
kind  on  this  subject.     All  that  Universalists  pretend  to  shoie 

Warburton's  Dirine  Legation. 


40  Remarks  on  the  distinguithing  Doctrine  of 

is,  that  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment  is  not  revealed  and 
*taught  in  the  Old  Testament.  But  if  we  even  grant  this,  it 
does  not  prove  that  this  doctrine  was  not  revealed,  or  not  be- 
lieved, under  the  Old  Testament.  It  may  have  been  revealed, 
without  having  been  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  may- 
have  been  revealed  in  paradise,  universally  believed  after- 
wards, and  therefore  taken  for  granted  by  the  sacred  histo- 
rian, as  a  universally  admitted  truth ;  in  the  same  way  as  the 
being  of  God  is  taken  for  granted  in  the  very  first  chapter  of 
Genesis.  Under  this  aspect,  the  one  subject  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  other :  the  one  is  a  question  about  a  doctrine 
said  to  be  revealed  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  other  is  a 
question  about  a  historical  fact  relating  to  the  opinions  of  the 
ancient  people  of  God.  Grant  the  Universalist,  therefore, 
all  that  he  contends  for  on  this  pointy  and  our  argument  still 
stands  in  full  force  to  prove  the  fact,  that  the  ancient  Jews 
and  Israelites  did,  in  all  ages,  hold  the  doctrine  of  future 
punishment.  The  Universalist  has  not  brought,  and  cannot 
bring,  one  single  fact  or  argument  to  render  the  contrary 
even  in  the  slightest  degree  probable. 

Our  former  conclusion,  therefore,  still  stands  uninvalidated 
and  unanswerable — the  Universalist  doctrine  is  against  the 
belief  and  against  the  reason,  of  all  mankind  ;  and  it  there- 
fore cannot  be  true.  We  say  against  the  belief  of  all  man' 
kind,  without  one  single  national  exception.  For  though 
some  Universalists  maintain  that  the  ancient  Israelites  were 
an  exception,  they  have  not  brought  one  single  argument  or 
fact  to  make  that  assertion  probable  ;  and  we  have,  on  the 
contrary,  adduced  several  arguments  and  facts,  any  one  of 
which  is  enough  to  make  it  probable,  and  all  of  which,  taken 
together,  make  it  morally  certain,  that  the  Old  Testament 
Church,  in  all  ages,  believed  in  the  doctrine  of  future  re- 
wards and  punishments  ;  and  derived  the  belief  of  that  doc- 
trine, not  from  the  heathens  around  them,  but  from  Abraham 
their  founder,  and  originally  from  divine  revelation. 

This  argument  in  favour  of  future  punishment  is  drawn 
from  reason  and  the  light  of  nature,  independently  of  the 
Scriptures.    The  Universalist  cannot  admit  that  the  doctrine 


Modern  Universalism,  41 

of  future  punishment  was  revealed  to  our  first  parents,  and 
transmitted  by  a  traditionary  inheritance  to  the  rest  of  man- 
kind, as  we  fully  believe,  and  as  the  above  remarks,  we  think, 
prove  :  its  universal  belief,  therefore,  as  it  could  not  spring 
from  chance  or  state  policy,  must,  upon  his  principles,  be 
ascribed  to  the  reason  and  common  sense  of  all  men,  in  all 
ages.  And  if  this  be  so,  to  deny  this  doctrine,  is  contrary  to 
the  reason  and  common  sense  of  all  mankind.  And  if  the 
Deist  is  unreasonable  in  refusing  to  believe  in  divine  revela- 
tions, since  all  nations  have  believed  in  them — if  the  Atheist 
is  absurd  in  denying  the  existence  of  God,  contrary  to  the 
universal  belief  of  mankind — if  the  disciples  of  Berkely  and 
Hume  are  absurd  in  denying  what  reason  and  common  sense 
teach  every  body,  the  real  existence  of  the  objects  around 
us— then,  for  the  same  reason,  the  Universalist  is  unreason- 
able and  absurd  in  denying  the  doctrine  of  future  rewards 
and  punishments. 

But,  lastly,  we  believe  that  the  doctrine  of  a  future  state 
was  revealed  to  our  first  parents ;  and  we  ask,  therefore, 
what  should  we  naturally  infer  from  analogy,  and  from  the 
nature  of  the  case  ;  and  what  does  the  Old  Testament  teach 
on  the  subject  of  a  future  life?  Is  it  probable  that  God  gave 
man  existence,  without  ever  acquainting  him  with  his  des- 
tiny ?  Did  he  design  man  for  a  future  state  of  being,  and 
still  leave  him  ignorant  of  it  f  Did  he  create  man  immortal^ 
and  still  leave  him  without  the  knowledge  or  belief  of  another 
life?  Is  it  possible  that  the  Father  of  mercies  should  thus 
treat  his  intelligent  offspring?  Is  not  his  mercy  over  all  his 
works  ?  Does  he  not  real/y  desire  us  to  be  holy  and  happy, 
both  here  and  hereafter  ?  Must  not  the  knowledge  of  a  future 
state  have  been  eminently  calculated  to  promote  both  these 
tnds?  Was  not  this  knowledge  just  as  necessary  immediately 
after  the  fall,  as  it  was  1800  years  ago  ?  Can  any  reason  in 
the  world  be  given  why  God  should  leave  man  destitute  of 
information  so  highly  important  ?  Is  it  not  inconsistent  with 
the  attributes  of  his  character,  and  with  his  unform  conduct 
towards  his  intelligent  creatures  ?  Is  there  not  then,  at  first- 
view,  a  presumption  in  favour  of  the  opinion,  that  he  com- 

n 


42  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

municated  to  our  first  parents  the  knowledge  of  a  fatiire  life  ; 
and  must  not  very  good  reasons  be  given,  before  we  can  be 
authorized  to  believe  the  cbntrary  ?  Ca7i  we  believe  the  con- 
trary without  impeaching  the  goodness  of  God  ? 

And  if  the  iiature  of  the  case  forbids  the  supposition,  that 
our  good  and  gracious  God  left  our  ferst  parents  and  their 
posterity  as  ignorant  as  brutes  upon  the  subject  of  a  future 
life  ;  does  not  analog)/  likewise  forbid  us  to  suppose,  that 
they  were  left  to  grope  m  more  than  heathenish  darkness  P 
We  learn  from  the  Old  Testament,  directly  or  indirect'y? 
that  God,  from  the  veri/  beginning,  communicated  to  mankind 
every  species  of  moral  and  religious  knowledge  that  could  be 
of  service  to  them  ;  and  appointed  all  those  various  means 
and  ordinances  by  which  this  knowledge  might  best  be  pre- 
served and  rendered  useful.  For  this  purpose,  both  before 
and  after  the  fall,  both  before  and  after  the  flood,  he  appeared 
to  them,  and  instructed  them — sometimes  in  a  human  or  an- 
gelic shape — sometimes  by  dreams,  visions,  or  a  voice  from 
heaven — sometimes  by  invisible  though  powerful  communi- 
cations to  the  hearts  and  minds  of  his  prophets — ^and  gene- 
rally by  revelations  made  from  the  bright  cloud  or  pillar  of 
fire,  which  appears,  from  the  very  creation,  to  have  been  the 
ordinary  symbol  of  Jehovah's  presence,  and  the  ordinary  me- 
dium through  which  he  conversed  with  men,  and  gave  an- 
swers to  their  inquiries.  And  the  knowledge  thus  acquired 
he  caused  to  be  preserved,  by  frequently,  and  in  different 
places,  repeating  these  revelations,  and  adding  to  their  im- 
pressiveness  by  the  miracles  and  wonders  that  from  time  to 
time  were  dieplayed- 

Accordingly  we  learn  from  the  books  of  Moses,  that  our 
first  parents  and  their  posterity  were  made  acquainted  with 
the  overruling  providence,  the  existence  and  perfections  of 
God,  and  with  what  they  must  do  in  order  to  please  him. 
From  the  very  beginning,  the  Sabbath  was  instituted — sacri- 
fices and  first-fruits  were  required — the  distinction  of  clean 
and  unclean  beasts  existed — and  the  head  of  every  family 
acted  as  the  priest  of  God.  Indeed  the  whole  moral  law  of 
the  ten  commandments^  and  many  of  the  ceremonial  distinc- 


^ 


^ 


Modern  Universalism*  43 

tions,  solemnly  and  publicly  ordained  at  Sinai,  appear  only 
to  have  been  the  republication  of  what  had  been  known  ever 
since  the  creation ;  God  thinking  proper  to  repeat  these  in- 
structions amid  all  those  awful  solemnities,  because  the  know- 
ledge of  them  was  mixed  with  error,  or  nearly  lost ;  and  like- 
wise for  the  purpose  of  giving  them  more  impressiveness  and 
force.  Hence  also,  Abel  is  said  to  have  offered  sacrifice  *'  in 
"faith^''^^  Noah  was  a  "  preacher  of  righteousness,''^'  and  the 
wicked  v/ere  punished  with  heavy  judgments,  which  God 
would  not  have  done,  had  they  not  been  acquainted  with  his 
will.  Indeed  the  most  ancient  heathen  writers,  with  one  con- 
ent,  declare  that  the  knowledge  and  the  institutions  of  reli- 


^  gion  came  at  first  from  God,  and  were  afterwards  handed  down 
by  tradition  to  the  varioxis  nations  of  the  earths 

If,  then,  God  took  so  much  pains  to  make  known  and  pre- 
serve ail  the  moral  and  religious  knowledge  that  might  be  ne- 
[cessary  for  their /knowledgejand  their  happiness,  can  we 
>  think  it  probable  tha"^  lie'would  studiously  conceal  from  them 
the  knowledge  of  a  future  state— the  very  doctrine  that  would 
give  most  efficacy  to  the  other  means  ?  Is  this  not,  on  the 
contrary,  extremely  improbable ;  and  does  not  analogy,  then 
l.ead  us  to  infer,  that  God  made  known  to  our  first  parents  the 
doctrine  of  a  future  life  ? 

This  very  probable  inference,  we  trust,  will  appear  a  cer- 
tain and  revealed  truth,  from  the  following  additional  consi- 
derations. Under  the  patriarchal  dispensation,  Enoch  was 
translated  to  heaven,  without  tasting  death  ^  and  under  the 
law,  Elijah  was  likewise  carried  up  alive  to  heiiven  in  a 
whirlwind  and  a  chariot  of  fire.  And  as  the  translation  of 
Enoch  was  no  doubt  public,  and  commonly  known,  in  order 
that  the  faith  of  the  righteous  might  be  confirmed,  and  their 
piety  encouraged,  by  this  visible  proof  of  a  stale  of  happiness 
hereafter  for  the  righteous ;  so  the  schools  of  the  prophets, 
and  multitudes  of  others,  knew  beforehand  that  God  would 


*  Heb.  xi.  i  2  Pet.  il.  5. 

J  See  Allix's  Deflections ;  Witseus  on  the  Covenants,  books  1  and  4;  and 
X-eland's  Advantage  and  Necessity,  chap.  i.  part  1 ;  and  chap.  ii.  part  2. 


44  Remarks  an  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

take  Elijah  to  heaven."^     Does  not  this  prove  they  had  the 
knowledge  of  a  future  state  of  happiness  for  the  righteous? 

Again ;  Job  speaks  with  the  utmost  confidence  of  the  re- 
surrection and  a  future  hfe.     "  I  know  that  my  Redeemer 
"  liveth,  and  that  he  shall  stand  at  the  latter  day  upon  the 
"  earth  :  and  though  after  my  skin  worms  destroy  this  body, 
"  yet  in  my  flesh  shall  I  see  God."'     The  psalmist  is  equally 
clear  and  positive.     "  Thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in  hell 
"  (sheol) ;  thou  wilt  show  me  the  path  of  life.     In  thy  pre- 
*'  sence  is  fulness  of  joy,  and  at  thy  right  hand  are  pleasures 
"  for  evermore.""" — "  Thou  shalt  quicken  me  again,  and  bring  ^ 
"  me  up  again  from  the  depths  of  the  earth."      Solomon  also ; 
says,"  "  Who  knoweth  the  spirit  of  a  man  that  goeth  vpward,^, 
"  and  the  spirit  of  the  beast  that  goeth  downward  ?     Then-      ^j^ 
"  shall  the  dust  return  to  the  earth  as  it  was,  and  the  spirit*^- 
"  shall  return  unto  God  who  gave  it."°  \  ''^ff^ 

Again  ;  "  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac,  and^ 
"the  God  of  Jacob."  Thus  spake  God  to  the  Israelites.''^ 
And  from  this  our  Saviour  proves  a  future  life ;  for,  says  he, 
"  God  is  not  the  God  o/"  the  dead,  but  of  the  living. ''^'^  The 
Saviour^s  reasoning,  I  suppose,  will  be  admitted  to  be  conclu- 
sive. But  the  following  should  set  this  point  at  rest  for  ever. 
The  Apostle,  in  the  eleventh  chapter  to  the  Hebrews,  expli- 
citly declares,  that  the  patriarchs,  and  other  pious  persons, 
looked  forward  to  happiness  in  another  world.  Though  stran- 
gers and  pilgrims,  they  were  contented,  because  ''  they  looked 
"  for  a  city  which  hath  foundations;  whose  builder  and  maker 
•*'  is  God."—"  They  all  died  in  faith,  not  having  received 
"  the  promises,  but  having  seen  them  afar  off;  and  were  per- 
"  suaded  of  them,  and  embraced  them,  and  confessed  that  they 
"  were  strangers  and  pilgrims  on  the  earth.  They  that  say 
"  such  things,  declare  plainly  that  they  seek  a  better  country, 
"  eve7i  a  heavenly,'^''* 

*<  2  Kings  il.       1  Job  xix.  25.       m  Psa.  svi,       n  Eccles.  ill.  21 ;  and  xii.  7, 
o  See  Christ.  Obs.  vol.  six.  numb.  8 ;  and  vol.  xxiv. — Review  of  Faber  on 

the  Dispensations.  p  Matt.  xxii.  32. 

•  That  a  future  life,  and  the  existence  of  souls  separated  from  the  body, 

In  another  world,  were  two  articles  in  the  popular  belief  or  religion  of  all 


Modlern  Universahsm,  45 

There  is  more  evidence  to  be  brought  on  this  point  here- 
after ;  but  what  has  been  said  is  enough  to  prove,  to  every 
unprejudiced  mind,  that  mankind,  from  the  very  beginning, 
had  the  knowledge  of  a  future  state  of  existence.  Reason 
makes  this  probable,  and  revelation  makes  this  certain.  This 
proves,  then,  that  the  universal  belief  of  mankind  in  a  future 
state  of  existence,  owes  its  origin  to  what  God  revealed  to 
our  first  parents  and  their  descendants.  But  we  have  already 
proved,  that  though  they  all  believed  in  a  future  hfe,  yet  they 
all  believed  that  the  righteous  only  would  be  happy,  but  that 
the  wicked  would  be  punished.  And  as  these  two  subjects  na- 
turally  and  necessarily  go  together,  zue  are  obliged  to  infer, 
that  not  only  the  doctrine  of  a  future  life,  but  also  the  doc- 
trine of  future  rewards  and  punishments,  were  made  known  to 
otir first  parents,  and  through  their  posterity  handed  down  to 
all  the  rest  of  mankind.  But  if  the  doctrine  of  future  punish- 
ment was  originally  revealed  from  heaven,  then  it  must  ne- 
cessarily be  true ;  and  then  likewise  the  doctrine  of  the  Uni- 
versalist  must  necessarily  be  unscriptural  and  false. 

3dly.  All  believers  in  divine  revelation  are  bound  to  reject 
and  condemn  the  leading  doctrine  of  the  Universalist,  be- 
cause that  doctrine  is  a  primitive  heresy  revived — a  heresy 
which  the  primitive  Church  unanimously  condemned :  and  if 
it  was  condemned  as  a  heresy  by  the  primitive  Church,  it  is 
equally  to  be  condemned  as  heretical  by  Christians  of  the 
present  day, 

nations,  long  before  the  days  of  Moses,  is  manifest  also  from  these  facts. 
From  the  earliest  ages,  among  all  nations,  it  was  the  practice,  in  cases  of 
difficulty  or  importance,  to  go  for  advice  and  information  to  their  sorcer- 
ers, wizards,  and  necromancers :  and  one  of  the  means  which  these  univer. 
sally  pretended  to  use,  in  order  to  discover  things  lost,  bring  to  light  things 
hidden,  or  foretel  things  to  come,  was,  by  calling  up  the  ghosts  of  the  dead, 
ajid  consulting  -with  departed  spirits.  That  this  was  the  common  practice 
in  the  time  of  Moses,  is  clear  from  one  of  his  laws,  which  forbids  them 
ever  to  have  among  them  one  who  consults  the  dead.  This  law  Saul  vio- 
lated,  when  he  went  to  consult  the  witch  of  Endor ;  and  her  story  is  aa 
irrefragable  proof  of  what  the  common  belief  was  in  the  time  of  Samuel.— 
See  Campbell's  Preliminary  Dissert.,  Dissert.  6,  p.  2. 


46  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

Now  the  Universalist  teaches,  that  as  we  shall  not  be  saved 
hereafter  in  consequence  of  our  good  works,  so  neither  shall 
we  be  punished  hereafter  in  consequence  of  any  sins,  how- 
ever great  and  numerous,  which  we  commit  in  this  life.  But 
as  all  mankind  are  justified  through  God's  mercy,  revealed  to 
us  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  so  through  that  mercy  all  man- 
kind shall  be  delivered  from  all  punishment  in  another  world, 
and  admitted  into  everlasting  happiness. 

This  is,  except  in  one  feature,  precisely  the  doctrine  of  the 
Simonians,  Gnostics,  and  Nicolaitans — her-etics  who  began  to 
appear  while  some  of  the  Apostles  were  still  alive ;  as  we 
have  already  had  occasion  to  state.  These  heretics  had  not 
the  hardihood  to  teach  that  all  mankind  would  be  saved  from 
hell  5  but  that  all  toho  hud  come  to  the  knowledge  and  belief  of 
the  Gospel  would  he  saved^  whether  their  lives  were  virtuous 
or  vicious.  But  though  they  promised  future  happiness  in- 
discriminately, not  to  all  Jews  and  heathens,  but  only  to  those 
who  professed  Christianity,  still  they  and  their  doctrines  were 
loudly  and  peremptorily  condemned  by  the  Apostles,  and  all 
the  rest  of  the  Christian  world,  without  exception — and  con- 
demned, because  they  were  unreasonable,  unscriptural,  and 
licentious  in  their  tendency^  And  if  these  ancient  Antinomian 
heretics  were  so  loudly  and  universally  condemned  for  hold- 
ing the  doctrine  of  the  Universalist  in  so  restricted  and  mo- 
derate a  sense,  what  would  those  early  defejiders  of  the  faith 
have  said  of  the  broad,  unblushing,  and  monstrous  doctrine 
of  the  new  Universalism,  which  mingles  light  and  darkness, 
Christ  and  Belial,  heaven  and  hell,  all  togettier  into  one  pro- 
miscuous assemblage  !  Well  indeed  might  Tertullian  exclaim, 
when  remarking  upon  the  immoral  tendency  of  so  impious 
and  detestable  a  heresy,  '*  H«ar  this,  all  ye  sinners  ^  and  t/e 
"  who  are  not  so  yet,  that  ye  may  be  so.  Such  a  kind  God  is 
"  found,  who  is  neither  ojffended,  nor  angry,  nor  revengelh — 
"  who  hath  no  fire  burning  in  hell,*  nor  gnashing  of  teeth  in 

*  It  is  somewhat  remarkable,  that  as  the  Universalist  cays  there  is  no 
hell  but  in  this  world,  so  the  above-mentioned  heretics  said,  "  the  body  is 
*•  the  onlt/  hell  of  the  soul,  and  from  that  hell  death  delivers  us.'*— King  oa 
the  Creed ;  art.  Descent  into  Hell. 


Modern  Universalism,  47 

"utter  darkness.  He  is  altogether  good;  he  prohibits  sia 
"  in  words  only.  It  is  at  your  pleasure  whether  ye  will 
"  obey  him  or  no ;  for  he  doth  not  desire  to  be  feared  by 
"  you."<i 

The  Universalist  doctrine  was  then  condemned  by  the 
Apostles  and  primitive  Christians  as  an  execrable  heresy ; 
and  all  Christians  therefore  ought  now  likewise  to  condemn 
it,  as  unscriptural,  false,  and  deserving  of  universal  reproba- 
tion. 

4thly.  It  is  impossible  the  leading  doctrine  of  the  Universal- 
ist should  be  true,  because  it  is  contrary  to  the  faith  and  prac- 
tice of  the  whole  primitive  Church.  The  first  Christians  lived 
at  the  fountain-head  of  our  religion:  they  received  its  pre- 
cepts and  its  doctrines  uncontaminafed  from  the  lips  of  our 
blessed  Saviour,  of  the  holy  Apo«;tles,  and  of  the  other  in- 
spired teachers  of  the  Gospel.  Taught  by  those  who  were 
themselves  immediately  taught  of  God,  it  was  impossible  that 
the  first  converts  to  our  faith  should  remain  ignorant  of  any 
essential  truth,  or  be  led  into  any  material  error.  Those 
who  were  divinely  inspired,  and  commissioned  to  preach,  to 
explain,  to  defend,  to  establish,  and  to  spread  the  Gospel  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  could  not  have  suffered  their  disciples 
to  continue  in  ignorance  or  error  upon  any  important  point, 
without  being  guilty  of  betraying  their  trust.  Accordingly 
we  find  numerous  passages,  scattered  all  along  from  Matthew 
to  Revelations,  all  of  which  are  aimed  against  prevailino-  er- 
rors in  faith  and  practice.  Nay,  many  of  our  Saviour's  in- 
structions were  given,  and  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the 
Epistles  was  written,  expressly  against  certain  erroneous^ 
doctrines.  Nor  was  it  their  design  merely  to  communicate 
information,  and  to  remove  errors  on  important  subjects. 
Our  Saviour  did  not  deem  the  "  mint  and  cummin"  of  reli- 
gion beneath  his  notice ;  and  the  Apostle  would  not  suffer  an 
erroneous  opinion  to  prevail,  even  upon  the  indifferent  sub- 
ject of  eating  the  meat  that  had  been  offered  to  an  idol.  In 
fine,  all  the  doctrinal  and  practical  instructions  of  the  New 

1  King  on  the  Creed ;  art.  Future  Judgment, 


48  Remarks  on,  the  disUnguishing  Doclrine  of 

Testament  were  given  rather  to  correct  existing  errors,  than 
to  reveal  any  thing  that  had  not  before  been  made  known. 
And,  as  we  have  already  shown,  the  very  error  of  the  Univtr- 
salist  is  there  specifically  pointed  out  and  condemned.  For 
the  Simonians,  the  Gnostics,  and  the  Nicolaitans  held  this 
error  in  a  modified  sense  ;  and  of  their  doctrine  God  declared 
that  he  hated  it.'' 

From  all  this,  the  following  conclusions  arc  self-evident. 
It  was  impossible  that  the  first  teachers  of  the  Gospel  should 
have  been  ignorant,  or  in  error,  upon  the  fundamental  doc- 
trine of  future  rewards  and  punishments.  It  is  impossible  that 
they  should  leave  their  disciples  in  ignorance  or  in  error  upon 
this  subject :  because  this  would  be  directly  contrary  to  their 
uniform  conduct  in  such  matters — it  would  argue  unaccount' 
able  inconsistency — it  would  be  an  effect  without  any  assign- 
able cause — it  would  be  a  deliberate  violation  of  the  trust  re- 
posed in  them — it  would  be  a  grievous  offence  against  their 
fellow-creatures,  and  an  act  of  rebellion  against  God.  It  is 
impossible  then,  also,  that  the  frst  Christian  Churches  should 
have  remained  in  ignorance  or  in  error  upon  this  point.  The 
Spirit  of  God  led  the  first  teachers  into  all  truth.  They  must 
have  taught  others  what  the  Spirit  of  God  taught  them:  and 
the  first  Christian  converts  and  Churches  must  universally 
have  believed  what  their  inspired  teachers  universally  taught. 
What  the  primitive  Christians  then  universally  believed  upon 
this  subject,  must  necessarily  have  been  taught  by  the  Apostles, 
teen  inspired  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  revealed  in  the  word 
of  God. 

It  is  morally  impossible  it  should  be  otherwise.  For  as 
Jews  and  heathens  generally  believed  in  the  doctrine  of  fu- 
ture punishment,  if  that  doctrine  was  false,  our  Saviour,  the 
Apostles,  and  other  primitive  teachers,  must  and  would  have 
specifically  and  repeatedly  condemned  it — If  that  doctrine  was 
true,  then,  since  it  was  a  common  article  of  faith  among  Jews 
and  heathens,  the  preachers  of  the  Gospel,  we  may  readily 
suppose,  would  generally  take  it  for  granted^  and  speak  of  it 

'  Uev.  ii.  15  J  and  other  authorities  before  quoted. 


Modern  (Jniversalism,  49 

as  a  received  truth.  (This  is  actually  the  way  in  which  the 
Scriptures  generally  speak  of  it.)  But  if  that  doctrine  was 
false,  as  the  Universalist  says,  then,  upon  his  principles,  we 
are  obliged  to  draw  the  following  inferences: — Our  Saviour, 
who  was  constantly  endeavouring  to  correct  even  the  smallest 
errors  of  his  hearers  upon  religious  subjects,  nevertheless 
suffered  the  greatest  and  most  prevailing  error  of  the  times  to 
pass  unnoticed.  Nay,  he  repeatedly  used  the  very  language 
that  was  then  universally  used,  when  they  spake  of  future 
punishment  after  death  ;  and  as  his  hearers  could  not  possibly 
understand  that  language,  otherwise  than  it  was  always  under- 
stood, our  Saviour  deliberately  led  his  hearers  to  believe  the 
doctrine  of  future  punishment — that  is,  according  to  the  Uni- 
versalist, he  not  only  suffered  them  to  continue  in  the  belief 
of  a  lie,  but  he  deliberately  taught  them  a  false  doctrine. 
Besides,  our  Saviour  promised  that  the  Holy  Spirit  should 
lead  his  Apostles  and  followers  into  all  truth.  This  must  at 
least  mean  all  needful  and  important  truth.  If  the  Universalist 
be  right,  our  Saviour  has  broken  his  promise. 

For  the  Universalist  cannot,  and  therefore  does  not  pretend 
to  bring  a  single  passage  either  from  the  Old  or  New  Testa- 
ment, where  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment  is  plainly  and 
directly  denied  or  condemned.  On  the  contrary,  the  sacred 
writers  repeatedly  and  familiarly  use  that  very  language, 
which  was  used  by  those  who  believed  in  future  punishment 
— the  very  language  by  which  that  doctrine  was  taught — and 
the  language,  therefore,  that  could  not  have  been  understood  in 
any  other  sense.  They  took  then  the  most  direct  means  of 
teaching  that  doctrine;  and  if  the  Universalist  be  right,  they 
took  the  most  direct  means  of  concealing  the  truth,  and  of 
confirming  their  hearers  in  the  belief  of  Sl  false  doctririe,  and 
of  what  they  knew  to  be  a  false  doctrine.  The  Apo.-;tles  then, 
as  well  as  our  blessed  Saviour  himself,  were  guilty  of  deliber- 
ately  betraying  their  trust,  and  confirming  their  hearers  in  gross 
error !  ! 

These  shocking  consequences  necessarily  follow,  if  the 
Universalist  doctrine  be  true.     But  if  we  are  Christians,  we 

7 


50  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

cannot  possibly  believe  these  consequences.  If  our  religion 
be  true,  it  is  impossible  these  consequences  should  be  true. 
As  Christians,  therefore,  we  are  obliged  to  conclude,  that  it  is 
impossible  the  Universalist  doctrine  should  be  true — it  must 
necessarily  be  false. 

The  above  view  will  be  more  fully  supported  in  the  course 
of  these  remarks.  We  proceed  now  to  observe  further,  that, 
as  it  was  impossible  that  the  first  and  inspired  teachers  of  the 
Gospel  should  err,  or  suffer  their  hearers  to  remain  in  error 
upon  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  future  rewards  and  punish> 
ments,  so  it  was  impossible  that  the  primitive  Christians  who 
succeeded  them,  should  err  on  this  point.  The  Apostle  John 
lived  until  the  close  of  the  first  century.  As  long  as  the 
Apo!*t!es  lived,  the  spirit  of  inspiration  continued,  and  the 
Church  was  furnished  with  numerous  miraculous  gifts.  And 
beside  the  Apostles  and  Disciples,  numerous  other  teachers 
were  inspired ;  so  that  the  Church  in  every  city^  had  its  in- 
spired and  heaven  directed  instrirctors.  In  this  way  all  the 
Churches,  planted  and  watered  by  the  Apostles  and  other 
inspired  teachers  during  the  first  century,  were  guarded 
against  error,  and  furnished  with  the  whole  truth  as  it  is  in 
Jesus.  Nay,  the  Church  had  all  these  advantages  during  the 
whole  of  the  second  century  after  Christ,  down  to  the  time 
of  Tertullian,  who  flourished  about  the  year  200.s  And  after 
the  (rue  doctrine  was  fully  revealed  in  the  inspired  writings — 
after  it  had  been  universally  taught  and  embraced  throughout 
Christendom— it  would  naturally  continue  to  be  taught,  and 
believed,  and  spread  abroad,  and  transmitted  from  father  to 
son,  from  generation  to  generation,  and  from  country  to 
country:  so  that  the  whole  Christian  world,  upon  all  im- 
portant points^  would  have  but  one  faith,  and  one  practice  ; 
and  those  who  differed  from  this  one  apostolic  and  universal 
faith  and  practice,  would  necessarily  be  condemned  as  here- 
tics, who  were  guilty  of  essential  errors. 

If  then  the  doctrine  of  future  punishnStent  be  false,  our 

9  See  Reeves'  Apologies. 


0 

Modern  Universalism,  61 

Saviour  and  the  Apostles  must  have  taught  their  hearers  that 
it  was  false.  If  those  inspired  teachers  taught  all  Christians 
that  there  is  no  future  punishment,  thign  all  the  primitive 
Christians  who  were  tauglit  by  inspired  teachers,  and  who 
lived  in  the  ages  imroediately  succeeding  them,  must  have 
held  the  true  doctrine  on  this  subject.  If  they  all  denied 
future  punishment,  we  may  be  assured  that  the  first  Churches 
were  taught  so  by  the  Apostles  themselves ;  but  if  they  ali 
believed  in  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment,  it  is  a  demon- 
stration that  this  is  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  and  of  the 
Apostles. 

For  the  argument  stands  thus : — Our  Saviour  and  the  Apos- 
tles either  taught  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment,  or  they 
taught  that  there  is  no  future  punishment.  If  they  preached 
the  former,  it  is  necessarily  a  true  doctrine.  If  they  did  not 
preach  it,  but  taught,  on  the  contrary,  that  there  is  no  future 
punishment,  then  the  first  Christians,  taught  by  them,  must 
necessarily  have  denied  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment. 
What  then  is  the  fad?  What  was  the  belief  of  the  primitive 
Christians  upon  this  subject?  It  was  impossible  that  they 
should  be  mistaken  upon  so  essential  a  point;  and  if  they  did 
not  believe  the  doctrine  of  the  Universalist,  that  doctrine  must 
necessarily  be  false,  ][  they  universally  believed  the  doctrine 
of  future  punishment,  that  doctrine  must  necessarily  be  true. 

Now  the  fact  is,  as  we  have  already  stated,  that  some  held 
a  doctrine  similar  to  the  leading  doctrine  of  the  new  Univer- 
salist ;  and  they  were  universally  condemned  as  heretics  and 
apostates  from  the  true  religion.  And  it  is  farther  a  fact,  that 
cannot  be  controverted,  that,  from  the  times  of  the  Apostles 
until  about  60  years  ago,  this  new  doctrine  of  the  Universalist 
was  never  heard  of.  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  and  Origen  his 
pupil,  familiar  with,  and  enamoured  of  the  philosophy  of  Plato, 
borrowed  from  that  distinguished  heathen,  the  idea  that  the 
punishment  of  the  wicked  hereafter  would  have  an  end — 
which  is  the  opinion  of  the  old  Universalist.  But  even  this 
notion,  as  well  as  some  other  of  their  philosophic  speculations, 
^as  tondemned  ^  and  the  visionary  and  monstrous  doctrine  of 


52  Remarks  on  the  distinguiskiyig  Doctrine  of 

no  punishment  for  any  of  the  kicked  after  death,  but  indiscrimi- 
nate admission  to  heaven  for  all  mankind,  has  so  much  of  the 
quintessence  of  abajjrdity  and  impiety,  that  for  1700  years 
none  were  found  adventurous  and  extravagant  enough  to 
espouse  and  publish  it  to  the  world — nor  did  it  ever  dare  to 
show  its  head  abroad  until  the  pantheistical  Theologues  of 
Germany  had,  under  the  name  of  philosophical  Christianity, 
set  all  reason  and  common  sense  at  open  defiance.  Even  the 
heretics  of  primitive  times  had  more  consistency  than  to  blend 
heaven  and  hell  together,  or  to  mix  apostates  and  devils  with 
angels  and  saints  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  They  opened  heaven 
to  both  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  ;  not  of  the  heathen,  but 
only  of  the  Christian  world. 

Further,  the  doctrine  of  the  Universalist,  as  far  as  it  was 
taught  by  some  heretics,  was  not  only  condemned  by  the 
primitive  Christians,  but  the  contrary  doctrine  of  endless  future 
punishment,  was  universally  taught  and  held  throughout  the 
whole  Christian  world,  from  the  very  birth  of  Christianity.  If 
this  is  a  fact,  it  clearly  shows  that  it  is  utterly  impossible  that  the. 
doctrine  of  the  Universalist  should  be  true.  And  that  this  is  a 
fact  none  will  deny  who  know  any  thing  of  the  matter.  But 
as  multitudes  who  are  well  disposed  err  for  want  of  information 
— as  ignorance,  prejudice,  and  sectarian  bigotry,  are  always 
blind — as  many  will  admit  nothing  that  is  not  proved  by  a 
detail  of  arguments  and  facts  submitted  to  their  own  judgment 
— and  as  the  present  point  is  of  vital  importance — we  proceed 
to  quote  from  the  fathers  some  passages  to  prove  that  they  taught 
the  doctrine  of  endless  future  punishment, 

St.  Barnabas  was  the  companion  of  Paul,  the  disciple  of  our 
Saviour,  and  probably  one  of  the  seventy  whom  he  chose.  In 
an  epistle  written  after  the  year  A.  D.  70,  he  says,  "  Let  us 
"  strive  to  the  utmost  to  keep  God's  commandments.  For  he 
"  wi]]  judge  the  world  without  respect  of  persons  ;  and  every 
"  one  shall  receive  according  to  his  zcorks.  If  a  man  be  good, 
"  his  righteousness  will  go  before  him;  {{wicked,  the  reward 
''  of  his  wickedness  shall  follow  him.  Let  us  take  heed,  there- 
"  fore,  lest  we  be  shut  out  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Lord  .•"  for 


Modern  Universalkm*  53 

'"  after  the  resurrection  he  will  judge  the  world,^^  "  The 
"  children  of  iniquity  shall  not  be  saved."  "  They  shall  be 
"  destroyed  by  fire  ^  because  they  have  not  repented  of  their 
"  sins."  "  But  the  righteous  shall  possess  the  world  to  come  ; 
"  and  they  shall  be  distinguished  from  the  unrighteous  by  their 
"  happiness.''' 

St.  Clement,  the  fellow  labourer  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  and 
subsequently  Bishop  of  Rome,  has  left  two  short  epistles  that 
have  come  down  to  our  times.  In  these  he  says  in  substance, 
that  the  Lord  will  hereafter  raise  up  to  eternal  life  those  who 
religiously  serve  him  ;  and  that  if  we  do  not  fear  God  and  lay 
aside  our  loicked  zvorks,  we  cannot  be  delivered  from  the  wrath 
to  come  in  a  future  world.  He  therefore  exhorts  the  Corinthians 
to  strive  with  all  earnestness,  that  they  may  be  found  in  the 
number  of  those  who  wait  for  Christ's  coming  to  judgment ; 
that  fe?/  so  doing,  they  may  receive  the  reward  he  has  promisee? 
to  those  that  seek  him,  and  act  agreeably  to  his  will.  If  we 
would  be  saved  and  receive  eternal  life,  we  must  repent 
while  we  are  in  this  world,  and  observe  the  commandments 
of  the  Lord.  For  we  shall  be  raised  up  and  brought  to  judg- 
ment hereafter,  when  God  will  reward  every  one  according 
to  his  works.  Those  that  have  been  righteous  shall  enter  into 
his  kingdom  and  receive  the  promises ;  but  those  that  have 
not  served  him  shall  be  miserable.  And  he  says  expressly, 
"  If  we  do  the  will  of  Christ,  we  shall  find  rest ;  if  we  disobey 
"  his  commands,  nothing  shall  deliver  us  from  eternal  punish- 
"  ment."  "  How  can  we  hope  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
"  God,  unless  we  shall  be  found  to  have  done  what  is  holy 
"  and  just?" 

Ignatius  was  made  Bishop  of  Antioch  by  the  Apostle  John. 
A  few  years  after  the  death  of  St.  John,  he  wrote  the  epistles 
that  have  come  down  to  our  times,  and  in  them  he  says, 
"  Let  us  either  50  fear  the  wrath  to  come,  or^o  love  the  grace 
"  of  Christ,  that  it  turn  not  to  our  condemnation,  but  that  we 
"  may  live  in  holiness  according  to  the  truth,  and  that  we  may 
"  be  found  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  eternal  life."  "  Life  and 
"  death  are  set  before  us ;  and  the  faithful  and  the  unbelievers 


54  Remarks  on  the.  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

**  shall  each  go  to  their  proper  place.^^  "  Be  not  deceived  ; 
"  those  that  corrupt  families  shall  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of 
"  God/^  "  He  that  by  his  wicked  doctrine  corrupts  the  faith. 
"  of  God,  shall  die — he  shall  depart  into  unquenchable  fire.'^ 

Polycarp  was  made  Bishop  of  Smyrna  by  the  Apostle  John ; 
and  in  his  epistle,  written  about  A.  D.  1 16,  a  few  years  after 
St.  John's  death,  speaking  of  Christ,  he  says,  "  Who  shall 
"  come  to  be  the  judge  of  quick  and  dead — whose  blood  God 
*'  shall  require  of  them  that  believe  not  in  him.  But  he  that 
"  raised  up  Christ,  shall  raise  us  up  likewise  to  glory,  if  we 
"  walk  according  to  his  commandments,  and  abstain  from  all 
"  unrighteousness."  '' For  neither  fornicators,  nor  effeminate 
»*  &c.  shall  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God."  "  Let  us  then  serve 
"  him  in  fear  and  reverence,  as  the  prophets  who  foretold  the 
"  coming  of  our  Lord  taught  us."  "  For  we  must  all  stand 
"  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ,  and  every  one  shall  give 
"  an  account  of  himself."  "  And  whoever  perverts  the  oracles 
"  of  the  Lord,  and  says  there  shall  be  no  judgment,  is  the  first 
"  born  of  Soian.^^ 

The  above  Polycarp  suffered  martyrdom  about  the  year 
A.  D.  147  :  and  the  Church  of  Smyrna,  in  giving  an  account 
of  that  martyrdom,  says  of  martyrs  in  general : — "  Supported 
"  by  the  grace  of  Christ,  they  despised  all  the  torments  of  the 
"  world — by  the  sufferings  of  an  hour,  redeeming  themselves 
"  from  everlasting  punishment.  Even  the  fire  of  these  bar- 
"  barous  executioners,  seemed  cold  to  them,  whilst  they  hoped 
"  thereby  to  escape  that  fire  which  is  eternal  and  shall  never 
"  be  extinguished.^^  And  one  of  Polycarp's  answers  to  the 
Proconsul  was  : — "  Thou  threatenest  me  with  fire  which  burns 
"  for  an  hour,  and  so  is  extinguished ;  but  knowest  not  the 
''^  fire  of  the  future  judgment,  and  of  that  eternal  punishment^ 
"  which  is  reserved  for  the  ungodly. ^''^^ 

Some  time  before  the  death  of  Polycarp,  Justin  Martyr,  a 
distinguished  heathen  philosopher,  having  been  converted  to 

tSee  the  preceding  quotations  in  Archbishop  Wake's  translation  of  the 
^poBtolic  Fathers. 


Modern  Universalism*  55 

Christianity,  and  being  at  Rome  during  a  time  of  severe  per- 
secution, wrote  an  apology  in  defence  of  the  persecuted 
Christians.  He  calls  himself  a  "  disciple  of  the  Apostles  ;" 
and  says  to  the  emperor,  the  senate,  u.r>d  the  people  of  Rome  : 
— "  To  lay  before  you,  in  short,  what  we  expect,  and  what  we 
"  have  learned  from  Christ,  and  what  we  teach  the  world, 
"  take  it  as  follows  : — Plato  and  we  are  both  alike  agreed  as 
"  to  a  future  judgment,  but  differ  about  the  judges;  Rhada- 
"  manthus  and  Minos  are  his  judges,  Christ  ours.  And  more- 
"  over  we  say,  that  the  souls  of  the  wicked  being  reunited  to 
"  the  same  bodies,  shall  be  consigned  over  to  eternal  torments^ 
"  and  not  as  Plato  will  have  it,  to  the  period  of  a  thousand 
"  years  only  ;  but  if  you  will  afBrm  this  to  be  incredible  or 
"  impossible,  there  is  no  help,  but  you  must  fall  from  error  to 
"  error,  till  the  day  of  judgment  convinces  you  we  are  in  the 
«'  right."  *'  We  are  the  greatest  promoters  of  peace,  because 
"  we  teach  that  every  one  is  stepping  forward  into  everlasting 
**  misery  or  happiness,  according  to  his  works;  and  if  all  mea 
"  were  once  fully  possessed  with  a  notion  of  these  things,  who 
"  would  make  the  bold  adventure  to  embrace  the  pleasures 
"  of  sin  for  a  season,  with  his  eyes  upon  eternal  fire  at  the 
"  end  of  the  enjoyment  ?  Who  would  not  strive  all  he  could 
"  to  check  himself  upon  the  brink  of  ruin,  and  to  adorn  his 
"  mind  with  such  virtue,  as  might  give  him  admission  to  the 
"  good  things  of  God,  and  secure  him  from  everlasting  ven- 
"  geance  ?"  Again,  "  But  since  all  departed  souls  continue 
"  in  sensation,  and  everlasting  fire  is  treasured  up  for  the 
"  unrighteous,  let  me  advise  you  to  look  well  about  you,  and 
"  lay  these  things  seriously  to  heart."  Again,  "  When  we 
"  teach  a  general  conflagration,  what  do  we  teach  more  than 
"  the  sloicks  ?  When  we  assert  departed  souls  to  be  in  a 
"  state  of  sensibility,  and  the  wicked  to  be  in  torments,  but 
"  the  good  free  from  pain  and  in  a  blissful  condition,  we  assert 
"  no  more  than  your  poets  and  philosophers."  Again,  "  We 
"  teach  that  such  only  shall  be  crowned  with  a  blessed  im- 
*'  mortality,  who  have  imitated  God  in  virtue,  and  those  who 
"  have  lived  wickedly,  and  not  repented  to  the  amendment 


56  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

"  of  their  lives,  we  believe  shall  be  punished  in  fire  everlast- 
"  ing.""  He  says  also,*  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Universalist,  that  it  is  a  ^^fundamental  truth  taught  by  the 
"  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament,  that  there  shall  be  punish- 
"  ments  and  rewards  hereafter,  rendered  to  every  man  ac- 
"  cording  to  the  merits  of  his  works." 

Ireneus  flourished  about  40  years  after  Justin  Martyr,  He 
was  the  scholar  of  the  above  mentioned  Polycarp,  who  was 
the  disciple  of  the  Apostle  John.  He  was  the  great  scourge 
of  all  the  heretics  of  his  day,  whose  errors  and  blasphemies 
he  exposed  and  refuted.  Speaking  of  a  creed  which,  among 
other  things,  taught  the  doctrine  of  future  rewards  and  pun- 
ishments, he  asserts  what  Tertullian  a  few  years  after  him 
likewise  asserted,  that  "  the  Church  dispersed  throughout  the 
"  whole  world,  had  received  this  faith  from  the  Apostles  and 
"  their  disciples.''^  He  asserts  of  a  certain  heretical  notion — 
"  Christ  Jesus  shall  judge  the  Valentinians  for  it,  when  he 
"  shall  come  to  judge  the  world."  Again,  "  He  shall  come 
"  to  be  the  Saviour  of  those  who  are  saved,  and  the  judge  of 
"  those  who  are  judged  ;  sending  into  eternal  fire  the  corrup- 
"  ters  of  the  truth,  and  the  despisers  of  his  coming."  Again, 
"  He  shall  come  from  heaven  to  render  a  righteous  judgment 
"  unto  all ;  he  shall  send  into  everlasting  fire  evil  spirits,  and 
"  the  angels  which  are  fallen  and  apostatized,  and  all  impious, 
"  unrif^hteous,  ungodly,  and  blasphemous  men ;  but  on  the 
"  righteous,  holy,  and  obedient  observers  of  his  command- 
"  ments,  he  shall  confer  life,  immortality,  and  everlasting 
''  glory ."'^ 

A  few  years  after  Ireneus,  about  A.  D.  200,  wrote  Tertul- 
lian. In  his  apology  for  Christians  he  says  : — "  To  the  ob- 
"  servers  of  his  laws,  God  has  destined  rewards ;  and  when 
"  he  comes  to  judgment  at  the  last  day,  having  raised  all  the 
"  dead,  that  have  been  dead  from  the  beginning  of  the  world, 
"  and  restored  to  every  man  his  body,  and  summoned  the 
<'  whole  world  before  him,  to  examine  and  render  to  all  ac- 

"  See  Reeves'  Apologies.  ^  King  on  the  Creed. 


Mqdern  Vniversalism.  57 

^'  cording  to  their  works,  he  will  recompense  his  true  wor- 
"  shippers  with  life  eternal,  but  will  sentence  the  wicked 
"  into  perpetual  running  streams  of  fire  everlasting."  i\gain 
— "  We  who  know  we  must  account  to  God  ;  who  have  a 
*'  prospect  of  that  eternal  punishment  he  has  in  store  for  the 
"  transgressors  of  his  laws ;  and  v<rithal  weighing  the  heavi- 
"  ness  oi  future  torment — torment  not  only  lasting,  but  ever- 
'^  lasting ;  wc  proportion  our  fear  and  obedience  accord- 
"  ingly."y  Again — "  Christ  shall  come  to  receive  the'  saints 
"  into  eternal  life,  and  to  adjudge  the  profane  to  everlasting 
"  fire."  And  again,  speaking  of  the  souls  of  both  the  righte- 
ous and  the  wicked,  between  death  and  the  day  of  judgmentf 
he  says — "  All  souls  are  in  hell,"  (the  invisible  world  below 
us).  "  Thei-e  are  both  punishments  and  rewards  :  both  Dives 
"  and  Lazarus  are  there ;  and  there  the  soal  is  either  pu- 
"  nished  or  comforted,  in  expectation  of  the  future  judg- 
"  ment."2 

We  might  proceed  to  make  other  quotations  upon  this  point; 
for,  with  slight  exceptions,  these  views  have  prevailed  ihroufh- 
out  the  whole  Christian  world,  from  the  Apostles  till  the  pre- 
sent time.  But  these  must  surely  be  sufficient;  and  these 
prove  that  the  doctrine  of  endless  f  dure  punishment  was  taught 
by  the  Apostles — was  received  and  prevailed  throughout  the 
iohole  Christian  world — and  was  occasionally  denied  only  by 
a  few,  who  were  universally  branded  as  heretics,  reprobates^ 
apostates  from  the  faith,  and  the  first-born  of  Satan. 

Now,  as  in  this  matter  it  was  impossible  for  the  ApostJes 
and  primitive  Christians  to  be  deceived  ;  and  as  they  fully, 
unequivocally^  and  universally  taught  the  doctrine  of  endless 
future  punishment ;  it  manifestly  follows,  that  it  is  impossible 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  XJniversalist  should  be  true — it  must 
necessarily  be  false. 

And  since  the  primitive  Christians  asserted  that  future  pu- 
nishment would  be  endless,  this  argument  is  just  as  conclu- 
sive against  the  old  Universalist  doctriae,  as  against  the  new 
one.     And  of  those,  therefore,  who  teach,  that  though  there 

y  Reeves'  Apologies.  z  King  on  the  Creed, 


da  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doetnne  of 

will  be  future  punishment,  yet  it  will  have  an  end,  we  must 
necessarily/  infer  that  they  labour  under  an  error ;  and  that 
their  doctrine  cannot  possibly  be  true,  because  it  contradicts 
the  universal  belief  of  the  primitive  Christians.  The  primitive 
Christians  could  not  possibly  err  on  so  material  a  point ;  and 
they  all  believed  that  future  punishment  would  have  no  end. 

If  any  thing  more  could  be  necessary  to  render  the  absur- 
dity of  the  new  Universalism  still  more  absurd,  and  to  make 
the  refutation  of  the  old  Universalism  still  more  manifest,  we 
have  it  in  the  co7tsequences  that  must  necessarily  follow  if  the 
above  argument  is  not  conclusive.  If  the  universal  belief  of 
the  primitive  Christians  upon  any  important  point  of  faith  or 
practice,  be  not  sufficient  to  prove  it  scriptural  and  of  divine 
authority,  then  we  have  no  sufficient  evidence  to  prove  any 
single  part  of  the  J^exo  Testament  divinely  inspired,  except 
that  which  is  clearly  prophetic,  and  has  already  been  mani- 
festly fulfilled.  A  prophecy,  when  fulfilled,  carries  with  it 
the  proof  of  its  own  divine  origin,  inspiration,  and  authority. 
But  the  authenticity  and  genuineness  of  all  the  other  parts  of 
the  New  Testament  stand  mainly  upon  the  fact,  that  the  pri- 
mitive Christians  universally  believed  and  received  them  as 
the  inspired  writings  of  those  whose  names  they  bear,  and  as 
part  of  that  sacred  truth  which  the  Spirit  of  God  had  revealed, 
and  caused  to  be  written  for  the  sanctifieation  and  salvation 
of  man.  And  as  very  little  of  the  New  Testament  is  prophe- 
tic, if  the  universal  consent  of  the  fir&t  Christians  in  favour  of 
any  important  truth  does  not  prove  that  truth  to  be  scriptural, 
and  binding  upon  our  conscience,  then  we  are  not  bound  to 
receive  the  New  Testament  as  the  word  of  God,  or  as  con- 
taining  the  revelation  of  his  will.  And  if,  upon  this  principle, 
we  discard  the  New  Testament,  we  can  easily,  upon  the  same 
principle,  get  rid  of  the  Old  ;  and  thus  we  shall  land  ourselves 
m  Deism,  or  something  worse. 

Nay,  this  principle  of  scepticism,  which  is  not  convinced  by 
the  above  reasoning  against  Universalism,  and  in  favour  of 
the  canon  of  Scripture,  leads  directly  to  J  theism,  or  universal 
doubt  upon  all  subjects.  For  the  evidence  we  have,  to  prove 
fhe  genuineness,  the  authenticity,  and  the  divine  inspiration,  of 


Modern  Universalism.  59 

^il  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  amounts  to  a  moral  cer- 
tainty — that  is,  to  the  highest  possible  probability.  Now  the 
'sery  existence  of  God,  and  the  very  truth  of  revelation,  are  not 
proved  by  higher  evidence  than  this  f  and  if  this  evidence  bje 
not  sufficient,  farewell  to  all  religion,  both  natural  and  re- 
vealed;  and  farewell  to  all  history  of  past  times ;  for,  upon 
this  principle,  nothing  is  to  be  believed  except  what  we  our- 
selves know  or  experience. 

If  then  the  Universalist  is  willing  to  go  this  length,  let  him 
at  once  declare  himself  an  Atheist,  or  a  Sceptic  ;  and  not, 
like  a  wolf  in  sheep's  clothing,  skulk  about  under  the  garb  of 
Christianity.  But  if,  in  the  sincerity  of  his  heart,  he  starts 
back  with  horror  from  these  consequences,  as  1  honestly . be- 
lieve he  would,  and  as,  upon  his  own  principles,  he  is  bound 
to  do ;  (for  he  believes,  or  at  least  professes  to  believe,  in 
revelation ;)  then  he  must  admit  that  the  above  argument  is 
conclusive,  and  that  his  own  doctrine  is  false. 

This  will  be  still  more  unanswerably  clear  and  conclusive 
from  the  following  considerations.  All  mankind  agree,  that 
when  we  cannot  attain  to  absolute  certainty,  we  are  in  duly 
bound  to  be  guided  by  probabilities:  and  that,  in  disputed 
points,  if  any  one  side  has,  on  the  whole,  but  a  few  prohabili- 
lies  more  in  its  favaur  than  the  other  side,  we  arc  in  duty 
hound  to  decide  in  favour  of  that -side  where  the  greatest  de- 
gree of  evidence,  and  the  greatest  measure  of  probability, 
lie.  Should  the  evidence  be  very  strong,  and  the  probability 
very  gr€at,  to  go  contrary  to  it  would  be  deemed  fiugrantly 
unreasonable,  and  an  absurdity  bordering  on  madness.  And 
again,  all  mankind  agree,  that  when  the  meaning  of  a  law  is 
disputed,  one  way  of  deciding  it  is  by  appealing  to  the  opi- 
nions and  practice  of  those  who  zuere  judges,  and  who  lived  at 
the  time  the  law  was  made^  and  immediately  afterwards.  That 
opinion  and  consequent  practice  which  universally  prevailed 
at  the  time,  and  immediately  afterwards,  among  competent 
judges,  is  always  considered  as  being  the  true  Interpretation  of 
the  lawj  and  the  very  interpretation  which  tlu  lawgiver  in- 

»  Loclce  on  the  Und^rstatiding-,  book  iv. 


UO  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

tended :  and  to  give  the  law  a  different  interpretation,  would 
universally  be  regarded  as  highly  unreasonable^  and  highly 
dangerous. 

Now  these  two  universally  acknowledged  rules  and  prin- 
ciples of  interpretation  are  directly  in  point  upon  the  subject 
under  discussion.  As  far  as  primitive  testimony  is  concerned, 
neither  the  Universalist  of  the  old  or  of  the  new  school  can 
support  their  doctrine,  without  going  contrary  to  the  reason  of 
all  mankind — without  adopting  a  principle  of  interpretation 
highly  unreasonable  and  dangerous — and  without  being  guilty 
of  an  absurdity  bordering  on  madness. 

This  argument  too,  be  it  remembered,  is  just  as  conclusive 
proof  in  favour  of  all  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  as  we 
now  have  them,  as  it  is  proof  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of  fu- 
ture punishment,  and  of  endless  future  punishment.  For  all 
these  rest  in  general  upon  the  same  paramount,  and  in  such 
weighty  matters,  unerring  authority,  of  the  inspired  and  hea- 
xen-directed  teacher's  of  the  Gospel,  and  of  the  Churches, 
throughout  the  whole  Christian  world,  that  were,  for  the  first 
and  second  centuries,  planted  and  instructed  by  them  ;  and 
that  continued  afterwards  in  the  faith  inherited  from  their 
fathers.  Whatever  they  might  in  other  matters,  in  these  it  is 
morally  impossible  they  shoxdd  err.  This  is  then,  in  general, 
a  proof  that  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  as  we  now 
have  them,  are  canonical  and  inspired. 

Since  then  the  primitive  Christians  universally  taught  and 
believed  in  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment — since  it  is 
impossible  that  they  should  have  been  in  error  upon  so  mate- 
rial a  point — since  we  cannot  consistently  deny  the  truth  of 
this  opinion,  without  denying  the  inspiration  and  authority  of 
the  whole  New  Testament,  and  indeed  the  whole  Bible— 
jince  such  a  rule  and  principle  of  interpretation  lead  not 
only  to  Deism,  but  also  to  Atheism,  and  universal  scepticism 
—and  since,  in  fine,  this  mode  of  reasoning  is  directly  con- 
trary to  the  common  sense  and  common  practice  of  all  man- 
kind—we are  irresistibly  forced  into  the  conclusion,  that  the. 
doctrine  of  the  Universalist  cannot  possibly  he  true,  but  must 
necessarily  hp.  false. 


Modern  Universalism,  61 

We  have  now  brought  four  distinct  series  of  argumeyits 
against  the  leading  doctrine  of  the  new  Universahsm.  ^ny 
one  of  these  series  is  sufficient  to  prove  that  doctrine  unrea- 
sonable, unscriptural,  and  false ;  but  the  zohole  four  united 
prove,  with  an  evidence  amounting  to  mathematical  demon- 
stration, that  the  Universalist  doctrine  cannot  possibly  be 
true  ;  but  must  necessarily  be  false.  It  cannot  be  true,  be- 
cause it  is  exceedingly  licentious  and  destructive  in  its  ten- 
dency and  consequences.  It  cannot  be  true,  because  it  is 
contrary  to  the  common  sense  and  the  universal  belief  of  all 
mankind,  in  all  ages.  It  cannot  be  true,  because  the  primi- 
tive Christians  condemned  it  as  false  and  hereiical.  It  can- 
not be  true,  because  it  is  directly  contrary  to  the  faith  and 
practice  of  the  whole  Christian  world,  in  the  days  of  the 
Apostles  and  afterwards.  They  held  a  directly  contrary  doc- 
trine. They  universally  taught  and  believed  in  future  pu- 
nishment, and  in  endless  future  punishment. 

Here,  then,  we  might  drop  our  pen.  Enough  has  been  said 
to  convince  all  who  are  within  the  reach  of  conviction  by 
moral  means.  But  all  we  have  said  has,  with  slight  excep- 
tions, been  drawn  from  reason  and  the  nature  of  the  case. 
The  merits  of  the  question  have  not  been  tested  by  the  Scrip- 
tures :  and  as  the  UniversaHst  professes  to  build  his  system 
upon  revelation,  we  feel  bound  to  proceed,  lest  it  should  be 
said,  we  dared  not  put  the  issue  of  our  cause  upon  this  trial— 
we  dared  not  look  the  Scriptures  fully  in  the  face.  N^,  the 
silence  of  Christians  in  general  upon  this  subject:,  during  the 
last  fifty  years,  has  alrp.ady  hp.pn  thus  accounted  for.  Univer- 
sahst  books  have  stated  that  we  did  not  dare  to  meet  them  on 
this  ground,  because  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment  could 
not  be  proved  from  revelation.  The  sequel,  we  trust,  will 
show,  that  the  argument  from  Scripture  is  as  triumphant  as 
the  argument  from  reason  and  experience. 

The  Universalist  argument  from  Scripture  is  as  follows. 
The  Scriptures  do  not  threaten  punishment  after  death.  The 
orthodojs  argument  to  prove  future  punishment,  is  built  upon 


62  Remarks  en  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

those  passages  in  which  the  word  hell  is  found ;  and  those  ir 
which  the  word  everlasting  is  connected  with  threatened  pu- 
nishment. But  none  of  those  passages  prove  this  doctrine. 
For  the  words  translated  hell  are,  in  the  Old  Testament, 
Sheol,  and  in  the  New,  Hades  and  Gehenna,  But  Sheol,  a 
Hebrew  word,  only  signifies  the  grave,  the  invisible  world,  or 
the  place  of  departed  spirits ;  Hades,  a  Greek  term,  has  pre- 
cisely the  same  meaning;  and  Gehenna,  a  Hebrew-Greek 
word,  was  only  a  place  of  temporary  punishment.  None  of 
these  words  then  can  prove  punishment  after  deaths  And 
the  word  everlasting  only  signifies  age-la&ting,  or  continuing 
as  long  as  life ;  and  therefore  cannot  be  brought  t©  .prove 
future  punishment  in  another  world.  Besides  which,  many 
passages  promise  future  happiness  to  the  whole  human  race. 
We  deny,  therefore,  that  there  will  be  any  punishment  after 
death:  and  we  believe  that  every  soul  of  man  will  hereafter 
go  to  heaven.  For  the  wicked  are  judged  on  earth,  and  the 
only  punishment  they  s'uffer  is  in  this  world. 

Here  we  remark,  in  the  first  place,  that,  as  far  as  future 
punishment  is  concerned,  the  above  argument  is  negative,  and 
cannot  disprove  it.  Grant,  ^ven  for  a  moment,  that  the  argu- 
ment is  sound;  still  it  only  shows  that  ih^se  passages  in  which 
the  words  hell  and  everlasting  are  found,  do  not  prove  the 
doctrine  of  future  punishment.  It  does  Jiot  €how  that  this 
doctrine  is  not  revealed  in  Scripture :  for,  even  if  the  above- 
mentioned  passages  do  not  prove  it,  other  passages  mayx 
Grant  then,  for  the  pre&enty  that  the  above  argument  is  solid. 
For  argument  sake,  we  will  give  up  all  those  passages  in 
which  the  words  hell  and  ©vcrlaoting  or©  found.  We  admit, 
if  you  please,  they  prove  nothing  in  our  favour.  It  is  mani- 
fest they  prove  nothing  against  us.  They  do  not  bring  a  par- 
ticle of  direct  evidence  in  support  of  Universalism.  They 
leave  both  sides  of  the  subject,  then,  just  where  they  stood 
before  :  and  the  matter  must  be  decided  by  other  arguments 
and  other  passages.  The  whole  argument  of  the  Universalist 
from  these  passages,  furnishes  not  the  slightest  probability 
njnainst  the  doctrine,  of  future  punishmento    Though  the  Uni- 


Modern  Universalism*  6S 

tersalist  should  demolish  all  these  passages,  he  still  has  not 
touched  that  doctrine :  and  he  is  guilty,  therefore,  of  Begging 
the  question  from  beginning  to  end. 

Laying  then  these  passages  aside  for  a  moment,  we  under- 
take to  prove  the  doctrine  of  future  and  endless  punishment 
from  other  parts  of  holy  writ.  But  before  we  do  this,  it  will 
be  proper  to  state,  fairly  and  fully,  all  that  is  essential  ta  the 
orthodox  view  of  future  punishment.  For  that  doctrine  is 
frequently  misrepresented,  for  the  purpose  of  making  it  ap- 
pear odious  and  improbable. 

The  belief  of  orthodox  Christians,  as  derived  from  the  word 
of  God,  may  be  summed  up  as  follows.  That  all  those  who 
are  impenitent  and  unholy  at  death,  will  be  punished  for  ever 
in  the  world  to  come.  That  the  punishments  of  the  wicked 
hereafter  will  vary  just  as  much  as  their  characters  vary  here  - 
and  that  these  different  degrees  of  punishment  will  verify  the 
scripture  declaration,  that  all  shall  be  recompensed  "  accords 
«  ing  to  their  works."^  That  this  punishment  will  be  in- 
flicted by  means  of  fire,  or  remorse,  or  both  ;  and  likewise  by 
means  of  endless  exclusion  from  heaven  and  happiness.  That 
Christians,  however,  may  safely  vary  in  their  opinions  as  to 
the  mode  of  it,  provided  they  all  agree  in  its  being  an  eternal 
punishment.  And  that,  as  we  catmot  possibly  knozo  precisely 
in  what  future  punishment  will  consist,  so  we  cannot,  without 
presumption  and  absurdity,  affirm  that  this  punishment  would 
be  unjust.  A  blind  man  might  as  well  dispute  about  colours. 
All  that  is  essential  to  orthodoxy,  then,  is  to  believe  that  the 
wicked  will  hereafter,  in  one  way  or  another,  be  punished 
more  or  less  in  degree,  according  to  the  different  degrees  of 
their  sinfulness  5  and  that,  in  duration,  their  punishment  will 
be  endless, 

1st.  Now,  that  all  who  die  in  their  mckedness  will  thus  be 
punished  hereafter,  is  manifest,  in  the  first  place,  from  this 
that,  from  the  very  beginning  till  the  end  of  Scripture,  par- 
ion,  salvation,  and  eternal  life,  are  promised  upon  certain  con" 
dilions:  and  God  expressly  and  repeatedly  declares,  that  those. 

«» Matt.  xvi.  27;  Rom.  u.  6;  Bev.  ii.  §3;  xx,  I2j  xxii.  12, 


64  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  t)octrine  of 

who  do  not  comply  with  these  conditions^  cannot  he  pardoned^ 
saved,  or  admitted  to  eternal  life  and  happiness.  But  if  they 
are  not  saved,  or  admitted  to  eternal  life  and  happiness,  they 
are  necessarily  punished  ;  and  their  punislnnent,  too,  is  end- 
less. All  this  appears,  unanswerably,  from  the  following  par- 
ticulars. 

1st.  God  promises  salvation  and  eternal  life  to  those  that 
believe — that  is,  to  those  who  hiave  faith :  and  he  threatens^ 
those  who  do  not  believe,  with  damnation.  Hear  his  own 
words  : — Without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God.c — He 
that  beiieveth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved ;  but  he  that  be- 
lieveth  not  shall  be  damned.*" — The  unbeheying  shall  have 
their  portion  in  the  lake  which  burneth  with  fire  and  brim- 
stone ;  which  is  the  second  death.^ — The  Gospel  is  the  power 
of  God  unto  salvation  ta  every  one  that  belief  eth,  if  he  re- 
member and  obey  it :  otherwise  he  believes  in  vainJ — Those 
that  perish  receive  not  the  love  of  the  truth  that  they  might 
be  saved.  For  this  cause  (that  is,  because  they  hate  the  truth) 
God  sends  them  strong  delusion,  that  they  should  believe  a 
lie  :  that  those  who  believed  not  the  truth,  but  had  pleasure 
in  unrighteousness,  might  all  be  damned.^ — My  sheep  hear 
my  voice,  and  1  give  unto  them  eternal  life ;  and  they  shall 
never  perish.  Ye  believe  not,  because  ye  are  not  of  my  sheep. 
Whosoever  liveth  and  beiieveth  in  me.  shall  never  die.  But 
if  ye  believe  not  in  me,  ye  shall  die  in  your  sins.  He  that 
beliveth  on  the  Son  hath  everlasting  life,  and  I  v/ill  raise  him 
up  at  the  la&t  day.  He  that  beheveth  not  the  Son  shall  not 
see  life,  but  the  wrath  of  God  ahideth  on  him.''— We  should 
like  to  know  how  the  Universalist  doctrine  can  possibly  stand 
before  such  passages ! 

As,  however,  Universalism  cannot  give  up  its  cause  with- 
out a  struggle,  and  as  dying  men  catch  at  straws,  it  will  doubt- 
less interpose,  here  and  elsewhere,  its  meagre  interpretations, 
and  its  miserable  perversions  of  holy  writ.  It  will  say^ — (for 
nothing  else  can  it  say,  without  running  into  blank  infidelity) 

c  Heb.  xi.  6.  i  Mark  xvi.  16.  c  Rev.  xxi.  8. 

f  Rom.  i.  16 ;  and  1  Cor.  xv.  2.  s  2  Thess.  lu 

>  Joha  iii,  vi.  viii.  and  x. 


Modern  Universalism,  65 

J— »it  will  say,  that  all  these  passages  may  possibly  mean  to 
threaten  nothing  more  than  temporary  punishment  in  this  life^ 
and  because  it  deems  this  possible  or  probable,  it  will,  if  we 
may  judge  from  its  past  conduct,  with  palpable  and  schoolboy 
inconsistency  go  on  exultingly.  as  though  it  had  proved  its 
own  side  of  the  question  :  just  as  the  ostrich  feels  itself  safe 
from  its  pursuers,  though  it  has  concealed  only  its  head.  But 
is  a  thing  to  be  believed  merely  because  it  is  possible,  or  be- 
cause some  visionary  thinks  it  probable  ?  Suppose,  in  order 
to  meet  palpable  absurdity  with  palpable  absurdity,  we  should 
say,  it  is  possible  the  moon  may  be  made  of  green  cheese.  Is 
this  any  reason  why  we  should  believe  it  to  be  so  made  ? 
Would  you  call  this  good  logic  f*  Such  a  thing  may  possibly 
be  true,  therefore  I  believe  it  to  be  true.  Hume,  and  the 
German  Pantheists,  Atheists,  sceptics,  and  visionaries  of  every 
description,  have  always  thought  their  own  views  and  inter- 
pretations probable.     Does  this  prove  they  are  so  ? 

But  the  argument  from  possibilities  upon  which  Universal- 
ism chiejiy  rests,  we  shall  notice  presently  :  and  of  all  the 
interpretations  which  it  gives  to  the  numerous  scripture  pas- 
sages we  shall  adduce  in  these  remarks,  we  assert  unhesitat- 
ingly and  peremptorily — it  is  impossible  they  should  be  true, 
1st.  Because  it  is  impossible  that  our  preceding  arguments 
should  be  answered  ;  and  if  not  answered,  our  interpretation 
must  be  the  true  one.  2d.  Because  it  is  a  fact,  proved  by 
the  writings  of  both  Jews  and  Christians,  that  they  univer- 
sally understood  the  passages  we  quote,  in  the  sense  we 
attach  to  them ;  and  we  have  already  proved,  that  upon  a 
point  of  such  magnitude  it  was  impossible  the}'  should  err, 
and  misunderstand  the  Scriptures.  And  lastly,  Because,  if 
they  did  err  and  misunderstand,  it  was  impossible  that  our 
Saviour,  the  Apostles,  and  all  the  other  inspired  teachers, 
should  not  only  deliberately  suffer  them  to  remain  in  this 
error,  but  should  speak  in  such  a  way  as  to  teach  (hem  this 
error,  and  confirm  them  in  it.  For  they  used  the  very  lan- 
guage which  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  used,  when  teaciiing 
the  doctrine  of  future  punishment;  and  it  necessarily  follows, 
therefore,  that  the  Saviour,  Apostles,  and  inspired  teacheza 

9 


G6  Remar/cs  on  the  dlslingnishine:  Doctrine  of 

intended  to  teach  this  doctrine.  It  is  impossible,  therefore, 
that  this  doctrine  should  be  false — it  is  impossible  that  our 
interpretation  of  Scripture  passages  relating  to  this  subject, 
should  be  erroneous— and  impossible  that  the  UniversaUst 
doctrine  should  be  true. 

2dly.  Pardon,  salvation,  and  eternal  life,  are  promised  on 
condition  of  repentance ;   and  those  who  do  not  repent  are 
threatened  with  endless  ruin.     Thus  God  addresses  the  Israe- 
lites : — Repent,  and  turn  yourselves  from  all  your  transgres- 
sions ;  so  iniquity  shall  not  be  your  ruin.^     In  the  same  style 
the  Saviour  addressed  the  Jews  : — Except  ye  repent,  ye  shall 
all  perish."^     Thus  also  the  Apostles  preached  : — Repent,  and 
be  converted,  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out.'     And  St. 
Paul  declares  in  his  speech  before  Agrippa  :™  that  God  sent 
him  to  the  Gentiles  to  open  their  eyes,  and  to  turn  them  from 
darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan  unto  God,  in 
order  that  they  might  receive  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  an  in- 
herilance  among   those  who  are  sanctified  through  faith   in 
Christ.     And  he  declares  further,  that  for  this  very  purpose, 
iie  taught  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  that  they  must  repent  and 
turn  to  God,  and  do  works  meet  for  repentance.     St.  Peter 
also  says,"  that  God  is  long-suffering  towards  sinners,  because 
be  is  not  willing  that  any  shou\d  perish  ;  but  that  all  should 
come  to  repentance  :  and  St.  Paul  declares,"  that  the  impeni- 
tent treasure  up  to  themselves  wrath  against  the  day  of  wrath 
—that  day  when  God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men  accord- 
ing to  the  Gospel.     If  these  things  be  so,  how  can  those  who 
die  impenitent  possibly  be  saved  hereafter? 

3dly.  Pardon,  salvation,  and  eternal  life,  are  promised  on 
condition  of  our  being  converted  or  turned  from  the  love  and 
practice  of  sin,  to  the  love  and  practice  of  holiness  :  while  on 
the  other  hand,  Scripture  declares,  that  those  who  are  not 
converted,  shall  die,  not  the  first,  but  the  second  death;  and 
therefore  be  shut  out  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Hear  its 
vv^ords : — Except  ye   be  converted,  ye  shall  not  enter  the 

i  Ezek  svUi.  30.  ^  Luke  xiii.  3.  •  Acts  iii.  19. 

^  Acts  xsvi  n  2  Pet.  iii.  9.  «>  Rom.  ii.  5,  8tc 


Modern  Universalism,  67 

kingdom  of  heaven. p  This  people's  heart  is  waxed  gross,  and 
their  eyes  have  they  closed  ;  lest  they  should  be  converted, 
and  their  sins  should  be  forgiven  them.  Let  the  wicked  for- 
sake his  way,  and  the  unrighteous  man  his  thoughts ;  and  let 
him  return  unto  the  Lord,  and  he  will  have  mercy  upon  him  5 
and  abundantly  pardon.  If  thou  warn  the  wicked,  and  he 
turn  not  from  his  wickedness,  he  shall  die  in  his  iniquity  :  and 
when  a  righteous  man  doth  turn  from  his  righteousness,  and 
committeth  iniquity,  he  sball  die  in  his  sins,  and  his  righteous- 
ness shall  not  be  remembered.  But  if  thou  warn  the  righte- 
ous, and  he  doth  not  sin,  he  shall  surely  live.  Again — if  a 
man  be  just,  and  do  that  which  is  lawful  and  right,  he  shall 
surely  live  ;  if  not,  he  shall  surely  die.  The  soul  that  sinneth, 
it  shall  die.  But  if  the  wicked  turn  from  all  his  sins,  he  shall 
surely  live  ;  he  shall  not  die,  he  shall  save  his  soul  alive.  As 
I  live,  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  the  wicked,  saith  the 
Lord  ;  wherefore,  turn  yourselves  and  live  ye — Turn  ye  from 
your  evil  ways,  for  why  will  ye  die,  O  house  of  Israeli* 

Here  God  declares  that  he  cannot  pardon,  or  have  mercy 
upon  sinners,  unless  they  turn  or  are  converted.  How  then 
can  they  be  saved  without  conversion  ?  Here  God  declares 
that  all  the  ungodly  shall  die.  This  cannot  mean  that  they 
shall  die  a  natural  death,  because  the  righteous  as  well  as  the 
wicked  must  die  this  death.  Nor  can  it  mean  that  they  shall 
die  spiritually,  for  being  wicked,  they  are  already  spiritually 
dead ;  and  the  punishment  here  threatened  is  something 
future — they  shall  die,  sometime  hereafter.  Besides,  this 
death  of  the  wicked  is  put  in  contrast  with  the  life  of  the 
righteous ;  and  as  the  life  of  the  righteous  necessarily  means 
eternal  life  and  happiness  in  another  world,  death  must  neces- 
sarily mean  the  reverse  of  this,  viz.  eternal  death.  What 
else  then  can  death  mean,  but  that  future  punishment  which 
takes  place  after  the  dissolution  of  soul  and  body — which  the 
Apostle  calls  the  second  death,'^  a  death  that  comes  after  the 
first  death — which  he  says,  consists  in  being  cast  into  the  lake 

P  Matt,  xviii.  3  ;  xiil.  15  j  Mark  iv.  12;  l3a.  Iv. '''. 
a  Rev.  ii.xx.sxi.xsii. 


68  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doclrine  of 

which  burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone — and  by  which  the 
Jews,  in  our  Saviour's  time,  always  understood  endless  future 
punishment.  In  fine,  as  God  here  speaks  of  individuals,  and 
declares  that  the  soul  of  the  sinner  shall  die,  and  the  soul  of 
the  righteous  shall  be  saved  alive,  what  can  it  possibly  mean, 
but  eternal  life  and  salvation  in  the  one  case,  and  eternal  death 
and  damnation  in  the  other  ? 

4thly.  Eternal  salvation  is  promised  on  condition  of  obedi- 
ence to  God's  commandments ;  while  the  disobedient  are 
threatened  with  exclusion  from  heaven  and  happiness.  Hear 
the  Scripture  proof  of  this: — Cursed  is  everyone  that  con- 
tinueth  not  in  all  things,  written  in  the  book  of  the  law,  to  do 
them.  Not  every  one  that  saith  unto  me,  Lord,  Lord,  shall 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but  he  that  doeth  the  will 
of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven.  If  thou  wilt  enter  into  life, 
keep  the  commandments.  Not  the  hearers  of  the  law,  but 
the  doers  of  the  law,  shall  be  justified  before  God.  Blessed 
are  they  that  do  his  commandments,  that  they  may  have  a  right 
to  the  tree  of  life.  If  a  man  keep  my  sayings,  he  shall  never 
see  death.  Christ  is  the  author  of  eternal  salvation  unto  all 
them  that  obey  him.  When  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  come  to  be 
glorified  in  his  saints,  and  admired  in  all  them  that  believe,  he 
shall  be  revealed  from  heaven  with  his  mighty  angels,  to  take 
vengeance  with  flaming  fire,  on  them  that  know  not  God,  and 
obey  not  the  Gospel."^  If  then,  the  righteous  scarcely  be 
saved,  where  shall  the  sinner  and  the  ungodly  appear  ?  And 
if  the  preceding  declarations  be  true,  what  becomes  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Universalist? 

5thly.  Heaven  and  eternal  happiness  are  promised  on  con- 
dition of  holiness,  while  the  ungodly  are  cut  off  from  all  hope 
beyond  the  grave.  Hear  the  Scripture  proof  of  this  also: — 
Follow  after  holiness,  without  which  no  man  shall  see  the 
Lord.  When  ye  were  the  servants  of  sin,  what  fruit  had  ye 
in  those  things  of  which  ye  are  now  ashamed  ?  for  the  end 
of  those  things  is  death.     But  now,  being  made/ree  from  sin, 

Gal.  Hi.  10  ;  Matt,  vii.22;  six.  17;  Rom.  ii.  13;  Rev.  xxii.  14;  John 
v'lii.  51 ;  Ileb.  V.  9  ;  5?  Thess.  i. 


Modern  Universalism,  69 

and  become  servants  to  God,  ye  have  your  fruit  unto  holiness  ; 
and  the  end,  everlasting  life.  For  the  zoages  of  sin  is  death, 
but  the  gift  of  God  is  eternal  life,  through  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord.  Be  not  deceived;  God  is  not  mocked  : — whatsoever 
a  man  soweth,  that  shall  he  also  reap.  For  he  that  soweth  to 
his  flesh  shall  of  the  flesh  reap  corruption  ;  but  he  that  soweth 
to  the  Spirit,  shall  of  the  Spirit  reap  life  everlasting.  If  ye 
live  after  the  flesh,  ye  shall  die  :  but  if  )^e  through  the  Spirit 
do  mortify  the  deeds  of  the  body,  ye  shall  live.  The  wicked 
is  driven  away  in  his  wickedness  :  but  the  righteous  hath  hope- 
in  his  death.^  Now  if7?07ie  can  see  God  without  holiness — if 
the  end  of  sin  is  death,  and  the  end  of  holiness  everlasting  life 
— and  none  but  the  righteous  have  hope  in  death,  is  not  the 
doctrine  of  the  Univcrsalist  unscriptural  and  false  ? 

It  appears  then  from  the  preceding  passages,  that  eternal 
life  and  happiness  are  promised  upon  the  conditions  of  our 
believing,  repenting  of  our  sins,  turning  to  God  with  all  our 
hearts,  obeying  his  commandments,  and  leading  a  holy  life — 
and  it  appears  further,  that  those  who  do  not  perform  these 
conditions,  have  no  hope  beyond  the  grave ;  but  are  cut  off 
from  the  heavenly  inheritance — the  wrath  of  God  abideth 
upon  them— and  they  incur  eternal  death.  But  the  Univcr- 
salist doctrine  contradicts  all  this.  For  it  denies  that  there 
are  any  conditions  of  salvation  ;  and  declares  that  all  shall  be 
saved  and  enjoy  eternal  life,  whether  they  beheve,  repent, 
obey,  and  are  holy,  or  not:  Universalism  then  does  directly 
contradict  the  Scriptures ;  and  it  is  therefore  impossible  that 
it  should  be  true — it  must  necessarily  be  false. 

The  following  miscellaneous  passages  and  remarks  will 
render  the  preceding  reasoning  still  more  unanswerably 
conclusive. 

Our  Saviour,  speaking  of  Judas,  declares,'  that  it  would 
have  been  better  for  him  if  he  had  never  been  born.  If  this 
is  true,  Universalism  is  false.     For  if  all  men  are  to  be  fof 

•  Heb.  xii.  14 ;  Rom,  vi.  20 ;  Gal.  vi.  7;  Rom.  viii.  13  ;  Prov.  xiv.  32. 
'  Mark  xiv.  21. 


70  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

ever  happy  in  heaven,  it  never  can  be  true  of  any  man,  that  it 
would  have  been  better  for  him  never  to  have  been  born.  Even 
upon  the  principle  of  the  old  Universalism,  this  cannot  be 
true.  For  however  long  the  punishment  of  the  wicked,  there 
is  an  eternity  of  happiness  coming  after  it.  And  as  a  man 
would  be  thought  a  fool,  who  should  say  he  would  rather  not 
have  been  born,  than  to  suffer  one  hourh  pain  during  a  whole 
life  of  uninterrupted  happiness ;  so,  for  the  sake  of  the  eternity 
of  perfect  happiness  that  is  to  follow,  every  reflecting  being 
would  be  willing  to  undergo  a  temporary  punishment  in  an- 
other life.  And,  whether  willing  or  not,  it  could  with  truth 
he  said  of  no  man,  that  he  had  better  never  been  born. 

Again  our  blessed  Saviour  says" — He  that  blasphemeth 
against  the  Holy  Ghost  never  hath  forgiveness  ;  but  is  exposed 
to  eternal  damnation.  The  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost 
shall  not  be  forgiven.  He  that  blasphemeth  against  the  Holy 
Ghost  shall  not  be  forgiven. — How  then  are  such  persons  to 
be  saved — without  forgiveness  ?  This  cannot  be.  For  the 
Universalist  admits,  what  the  Scripture  also  declares,  that 
Christ  saves  men  from  their  sins — not  in  their  sins.  But  those 
who  die  without  forgiveness,  die  in  cheir  sins.  How  then  can 
they  be  saved  ? 

1  am  not  ignorant  of  the  manner  in  which  the  new  Univer- 
salism attempts  to  get  rid  of  this  difficulty.  It  says  our  Savi- 
our's declaration,  that  this  sin  shall  not  be  forgiven  in  this 
world  or  in  the  next,  means  only,  that  it  shall  not  be  forgiven 
either  in  this  age  or  the  next ;  i.  e.  neither  under  the  Jewish 
nor  Christian  dispensation :  and  eternal  damnation  means  only 
aionian,  or  age-lasting  damnation,  and  expires  of  course  at 
death.  Now  upon  this  we  would  briefly  remark  :  It  is  a  uni- 
versally  received  rule  of  interpretation,  that  if  there  are  differ- 
ent laws  relating  to  one  and  the  same  subject,  and  if  the 
meaning  of  any  of  these  laws  be  doubtful  on  account  of  am- 
biguous terms  or  phrases,  that  law  which  is  plain  and  unequi- 
vocal, must  be  taken  to  explain  those  that  are  dubious,  and 
admit  of  different  senses.    Now  it  is  admitted  by  the  Univer- 

»>  Mark  iii.  29}  Matt.  xii.  31 ;  Luke  xii.  10. 


Modern  Universalism,  71 

salist,  that  the  word  age-lasting  (eternal)  does  sometimes  mean 
endless  duration ;  and  it  is  admitted,  that  the  phrases,  in  this 
world  and  the  world  to  come,  do  sometimes  mean,  what  these 
words  literally  signify — in  time  and  in  eternity.  As  then  therms 
is  a  dispute  about  the  meaning  of  these  words — as  their  mean- 
ing, by  the  Universalist  himself,  is  admitted  to  be  doubtful— 
these  words  and  passages  mu?t  be  se.t  aside,  as  neutrals-' — as 
proving  nothing  on  either  side  ;  and  we  must  find  out  the 
meaning  of  the  law  from  those  passages  that  are  plain,  and 
admit  but  one  interpretation ;  according  to  that  universally  re- 
ceived rule  of  interpretation  :  Doubtful  passages  must  be  ex- 
plained by  those  that  are  clear  and  unambiguous.  These 
words,  we  admit  then,  /or  the  present,  are  no  proof  for  us, 
because  they  are  sometimes  used  in  a  different  sense  from 
that  in  which  we  understand  them  :  neither  are  they  any 
proof  in  favour  of  the  Universalist,  because  they  are  some- 
times used  in  a  sense  different  from  what  he  puts  upon  them. 
Laying  these  aside  then,  let  us  turn  to  other  passages. 

Now  upon  this  point  there  are  the  following  plain  and  un- 
equivocal passages.  The  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost 
shall  not  be  forgiven  unto  men.  Again — He  that  blasphemeth 
against  the  Holy  Ghost  shall  not  be  forgiven.  This  language 
is  plain,  unambiguous,  and  unqualified.  It  admits  of  but  one 
meaning,  and  that  is  this  :  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
unpardonable.  Those  who  commit  it,  therefore,  will  conti- 
nue under  the  displeasure  of  God,  and  can  never  be  admitted 
to  a  state  of  happiness  after  death.  For  if  they  ever  are  ad- 
mitted to  a  state  of  happiness,  their  sins  must  be  pardoned. 
But  if  they  are  ever  pardoned,  the  above-mentioned  declara- 
tion of  our  Saviour  is  false.  This,  however,  is  impossible  ; 
and  it  is  therefore  likewise  impossible  that  the  Universalist 
interpretation  of  this  passage  should  be  correct. 

We  might  adduce  many  other  arguments,  that  would  lead 
us  to  the  same  conclusion.  But  we  do  not  think  it  necessary 
to  add  more  than  the  following  remarks.  The  Universalist 
interpretation  cannot  be  supported,  except  upon  a  principle 
that  sets  at  defiance  all  the  ordinary  rules  of  grammar,  criti- 
cism, and  interpretation— a  principle  that  must,  upon  all  gub- 


72  Remarlcs  on  the,  distinguishing  Doctrine  6/ 

iects,  lead  to  endless  errors  and  other  evil  consequences — and 
a  principle  at  variance  with  the  common  sense  and  common 
practice  of  mankind.  For  the  above  rule  of  interpretation  is 
followed  by  all,  upon  all  subjects,  and  in  ascertaining  the 
meaning  of  all  compositions,  and  all  laws,  both  divine  and 
human.  To  go  contrary  therefore  to  this  principle,  is  to  go 
contrary  to  all  reason  and  common  sense. 

/\gain — Our  blessed  Saviour  was  asked,  Lord,  are  there 
few  that  be  saved  ?  and  he  replied,  Strive  to  enter  in  at  the 
strait  gate ;  for  wide  is  the  gate,  and  broad  is  the  way,  that 
leadeth  to  destruction ;  and  jnany  there  be  which  go  in  there- 
at :  because  strait  is  the  gate,  and  narrow  is  the  way,  which 
leadeth  unto  life  ;  and  few  there  be  that  find  it.  He  further 
observed — Many  will  seek  to  enter  in,  and  shall  not  be  able  : 
and  to  their  entreaties  God  will  answer,  Depart  from  me,  all 
ye  workers  of  iniquity.  There  shall  be  weeping  and  gnash- 
ino-  of  teeth,  when  ye  shall  see  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob, 
and  all  the  prophets,  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  you  your- 
selves thrust  out." 

Now  the  salvation  here  spoken  of,  must  mean  salvation  in 
a  future  world.  The  nature  of  both  the  question  and  answer 
prove  this.  For  when  could  the  Jews  of  our  Saviour's  time 
possiblu  see  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  all  the  prophets^ 
in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  except  after  death}'  But  if  our  Sa- 
viour here  speaks  of  salvation  in  heaven  after  death,  then  it 
is  manifest  that  there  are  multitudes  who  will  not  be  saved; 
but  will  be  thrust  out  of  heaven,  and  in  a  state  of  suffering. 
And  then  it  is  equally  manifest  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Uni- 
versalist  must  necessarily  be  false. 

A^ain  ;  the  psalmist  declaresy  that  he  was  staggered  by  the 
prosperity  of  the  wicked,  and  the  sufferings  of  the  righteous. 
For  the  wicked  often  prosper — have  more  than  heart  coidd 
■zoish — are  not  in  trouble  as  other  men— -and  have  no  bands  in 
Iheir  death — that  is,  die  without  much  pain ;  while  the  righte- 
ous often  suffer  much,  both  in  life  and  death.  This  the  psalm- 
ist says  he  could  not  understand,  until  he  went  into  the  sanc- 

*  Matt,  v!i.  13;  Luke  xiii.  23.  y  Psa.  Ixsiii- 


Modern  Unive,rsalism,  T3 

tuary  where  God's  ministers  instructed  the  people  ;  and  until 
he  understood  the  end  of  the  wicked.  There  he  learned  that 
God  would  cast  them  down  into  destruction ;  and  that  all  who 
were  far  from  him  would  perish.  But  that,  on  the  other 
hand,  he  would  guide  the  righteous  here  with  his  counsel,  and 
afterwards  receive  them  to  glory,  and  be  their  portion  for  ever. 

F'rom  all  this  it  is  manifest  that  David's  difficulties  were 
removed  by  the  assurance  of  a  future  state  of  retribution, 
where  the  wicked,  though  prosperous  here,  would  be  pu- 
nished according  to  their  sins ;  and  where  the  righteous, 
though  sufferers  here,  would  be  made  for  ever  happy.  This 
is  evident  from  the  whole  structure  and  design  of  the  psalm. 
It  is  evident  also  from  his  teaching  us  that  his  difficulties  were 
removed  when  he  understood  the  e7id  of  the  wicked,  because 
then  God  cast  them  into  destruction,  and  they  perished.  Now* 
the  end  of  the  wicked,  when  they  perished  or  were  destroyed, 
when  the  righteous  were  rewarded,  and  a  clear  distinction 
was  made  between  the  righteous  and  the  wicked,  must  either 
mean  at  the  time  of  their  death,  or  afterwards.  But  it  cannot 
possibly  be  at  the  time  of  their  death,  because  the  difficulty 
and  doubt  of  the  psalmist  arose  from  this  circumstance,  that 
the  wicked  often  suffered  less  than  the  righteous  during  life, 
and  that  even  their  deaths  were  comparatively  easy.  The 
end  of  the  wicked,  then,  must  necessarily  mean  their  condi- 
tion after  death.  But  if,  as  the  psalmist  says,  they  Sire  de- 
stroyed and  perish  after  death,  and  this  is  their  punishment 
by  which  they  are  distinguished  from  the  righteous,  then  it 
necessarily  follows  that  the  wicked  are  punished  after  death  ; 
and  it  follows  with  an  equal  necessity,  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  Universalist  is  unscriptural  and  false. 

Lastly,  this  is  still  more  conclusively  manifest  from  the  con' 
irast  here  drawn  between  the  righteous  and  the  wicked.  The 
righteous  draw  near  to  God — the  wicked  go  far  from  him  : 
the  righteous  are  guided  by  his  right  hand  and  his  counsel — 
the  wicked  are  governed  according  to  their  wicked  inclina- 
tions. God  is  good  to  such  as  are  of  a  clean  heart.  Kay,  he 
is  good  also  to  the  wickedf  both  in  life  and  in  death.    For  it  ia 

10 


74  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

in  the  time  of  their  end^  or  during  their  condition  in  another 
life,  that  he  chiefly  makes  the  distinction  between  them.  Then 
he  casts  the  wicked  down  into  destruction,  and  receives  the 
righteous  to  glory — then  the  wicked  perish,  and  God  be- 
comes the  portion  of  the  righteous  for  ever. 

Could  a  future  state  of  reward  for  the  righteous,  and  pu- 
nishment for  the  wicked,  have  been  more  clearly  set  forth 
than  it  is  in  this  seventy  third  psalm  ?  Lan  any  thing  further 
be  necessary  to  prove  that  the  doctrine  of  a  future  state  of 
rewards  and  punishments  was  received  as  a  revealed  and  well 
established  truth  in  the  time  of  David,  1000  years  before  the 
time  of  our  Saviour?  And  ought  not  this  single  psalm  to  shut 
the  mouth  of  the  Universalist  for  ever  ? 

Finally,  the  blessings  of  religion,  here  and  hereafter^  are 
uniformly  held  forth  in  connexion  with  some  of  the  character' 
istic  marks  of  holiness.  Its  promises  and  its  precepts  most 
generally  go  together ;  and  the  privileges  of  the  children  of 
God  arc  suspended  upon  the  performance  of  certain  duties. 
But  Universalism  is  \n  pointed  opposition  to  this  ;  for  it  admits 
of  no  conditions  with  respect  to  the  blessings  of  another  life. 
God  says,  Blessed  are  they  that  do  his  commandments,  that 
they  may  have  a  right  to  the  tree  of  life.^  Universalism  says, 
O  no  J  you  are  blessed  whether  you  do  his  comnandments  or 
not ;  and  even  if  you  live  and  die  in  disobedience,  you  have 
a  right  to  eternal  life  in  the  heavenly  city. — God  says,  Seek 
ye  me,  an^  your  soul  shall  live.a  Universalism  says,  your 
soul  shall  live  whether  ye  seek  God  or  not — The  psalmist 
says,  The  mercy  of  the  Lord  is  from  everlasting  to  everlast- 
ing upon  them  that  fear  him,^  That  is  a  mistake,  says  the 
Universalist ;  for  the  mercy  of  God  is  upon  us  from  everlast- 
ing to  everlasting,  whether  we  fear  him  or  not. — Our  Saviour 
says,  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit ;  for  their'' s  is  the  king- 
dom of  heaven.  Blessed  are  they  which  do  hunger  and  thirst 
after  righteousness  ;  for  they  shall  be  filled.  Blessed  are  the 
merciful ;  for  they  shall  obtain  mercy.     Blessed  are  the  pure 

t  Rev,  xxii.  14.  a  Amos  v.  4;  Psa.  Ixix.  32.  *  Psa.  citi.  17- 


Modern  Universalism.  15 

in  heart  J  for  they  shall  see  God.  Blessed  are  they  which 
are  persecuted  for  righteousness^  sake  ^  for  their'' s  is  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  ;  and  great  is  their  reward  in  heaven.*^  In  all 
this  our  Saviour  is  mistaken,  sajs  the  Universalist.  For  hea- 
ven is  ours,  whether  we  are  righteous  or  not — poor  in  spirit 
or  not.  We  shall  be  filled  too,  whether  we  hunger  and  thirst 
after  righteousness  or  not — we  shall  obtain  mercy,  whether 
we  are  merciful  or  not — and  we  shall  see  God  in  heaven, 
whether  we  are  pure  in  heart  or  not. — If  thou  wouldat  enter 
into  life,  says  our  Saviour,  keep  the  commandments/  We 
shall  enter  into  life,  says  the  Universalist,  whether  ^^e  keep 
the  commandments  or  not. — Godliness  hath  the  promise  of 
the  life  that  now  is,  and  of  that  which  is  to  com*  says  St. 

Paul.®     So  has  ungodliness  too,  says  the  Universalist The 

Lord  hath  promised  a  crown  of  life  to  Ihem  that  love  him,  says 
St.  James,f  and  he  has  also  prepared  for  them  a  kingdom. 
Yes,  says  the  Universalist,  and  he  hath  promised  it  likewise 
to  those  that  hate  him  ;  and  for  them  too  be  has  preparexi  his 
heavenly  kingdom. — To  him  that  overcome tk  will  I  grant  to 
sit  with  me  in  my  throne,  says  Christ.^  Ah,  that  is  a  mistake, 
says  the  Universalist:  we  shall  be  with  Christ  hereafter,  whe- 
ther we  overcome  the  world,  the  devil,  and  the  flesh,  or  not. 
— Our  blessed  Saviour  declares:''  He  that  hearelh  my  words^ 
and  believeth  on  him  that  sent  me,  hath  everlasting  life,  and 
shall  not  come  inb»  condemnation.  These  eofldltions  are  not 
true,  says  the  Universalist.  We  have  everlasting  life — we 
shall  not  come  into  condemnation,  even  if  we  do  not  believe 
and  obey  the  word  of  God. — God  declares  by  his  prophet, 
and  the  Apostle  repeats,'  that  the  just  skaU  live  by  faith  ;  and 
that  believers  who  do  not  draw  back,  believe  to  the  saving  of 
their  souL  For  the  Gospel  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salva- 
tion, to  every  one  that  believeth^  But  if  any  draw  back,  God 
will  have  no  pleasure  in  them — nay,  they  draw  back  unto  per- 
dition»  Not  so,  says  the  Universalist :  we  shall  escape  per- 
dition—we  shall  please  God — we  shall  hve  and  be  saved  for 

c  M»tt.  V.  d  Matt.  xix.  17.        '^  1  Tim.  iv.  8.  f  James  i.  12. 

sRev.  iii.  21.       h  John  v.  24-  '  Hab.  ii.4;  Rom.  i,  17;  Heb.x- "P 


76  Remarks  on  the  dislmguishing  Doctrine  of 

ever,  though  we  draw  back  from  the  faith,  though  we  be  un- 
just, nay,  though  we  be  unbehevers. — In  fine,  Scripture  says, 
Repent  and  be  converted,  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out. 
Except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all  perish — iniquity  will  be  your 
ruin.  He  that  confesselh  and  forsakelh  his  sins  shall  find 
mercy.  The  Universalist  says,  our  sins  shall  be  blotted  out 
whether  w^e  repent  or  not — none  of  the  wicked  shall  perish. 
All  of  them  shall  find  mercy,  whether  they  confess  and  for- 
sake their  sins  or  not.  It  is  not  true  that  iniquity  will  be  the 
ruin  of  any  one  human  being  I ! 

And  is  not  Universalism,  then,  as  much  opposed  to  the 
word  of  God  as  darkness  is  to  light?  If  the  word  of  God  be 
true,  must  not  Universalism  necessarily  be  false  ?  And  is  it 
not  one  of  the  most  barefaced,  impudent,  and  heaven-daring 
systems  of  heresy  and  blasphemy  that  the  heart  of  man  ever 
conceived,  or  the  tongue  of  man  ever  uttered  ? 

As  the  words  life  and  death  are  important,  and  of  frequent 
occurrence  in  the  preceding  passages,  it  is  proper  to  inquire 
somewhat  more  particularly  into  their  meaning.  We  assert, 
then,  that  from  the  very  beginning  of  the  world,  these  words, 
besides  natural  life  and  death,  were  understood  also  to  mean 
eternal  life  and  death — that  is,  the  word  life  was  familiarly 
used,  to  signify  eternal  life  and  happiness  hereafter  ^  and  the 
word  death  loas  familiarly  used,  to  signify  eternal  death,  or 
eternal  punishment,  and  exclusion  from  heaven  and  happiness 
in  the  world  to  come. 

When  a  law  is  enacted  by  any  authority,  and  disobedience 
to  it  is  threatened  with  punishment,  it  is  absolutely  necessary 
that  the  language  of  the  law  should  be  understood  by  those  for 
whom  it  is  intended.  For  such  a  law  is  always  given  as  an  in- 
ducement to  the  performance  of  duty ;  but,  with  such  an  im- 
perfect creature  as  man,  the  inducement  is  in  exact  propor- 
tion to  the  amount  of  good  promised  to  obedience,  and  the 
amount  of  evil  threatened  against  disobedience.  If  the  sub- 
ject of  the  law  has  no  knowledge  of  the  good  or  evil,  it  is  the 
game  as  though  there  were  no  law ;  for  it  is  a  law  without  a 


Modern  XJniversalism*  77 

sanction — which,  with  moral  agents,  is  an  absurdity  in  terms. 
In  this  case,  disobedience  can  be  no  sin;  for  where  there  is 
no  law,  there  is  no  sin — since  sin  is  the  transgression  of  the 
law  :  and  in  this  case  too,  should  the  lawgiver  punish  disobe- 
dience, he  is  guilty  of  shocking  injustice,  tyranny,  and  cruelty. 

When  God,  therefore,  placed  our  first  parents  in  paradise, 
ii  necessarily  follows  that  he  must  have  fully  acquainted  them 
with  the  entire  consequence  both  of  obedience  and  of  disobe- 
dience. This  knowledge  was  necessary  to  make  them  com- 
plete moral  agents.  God  could  not  withhold  it,  if  he  wished 
them  to  continue  innocent  and  happy.  If  he  had  withheld 
it,  He,  and  not  they,  would  have  been  the  frst  author  of  sin. 
But  he  did  not  withhold  it ;  for  our  first  parents  were  created 
after  the  image  of  God:  and  that  image,  as  the  Apostle  in- 
forms us,  consisted,  not  merely  in  righteousness  and  true  ho- 
liness, but  also  in  knozoledgej 

Now  when  we  are  told  of  the  tree  of  life,  by  eating  of  which 
they  were  to  live  for  ever^ — and  when  we  read,*  that  if  they 
disobeyed,  and  ate  of  the  forbidden  fruit,  they  should  surely 
die — we  must  necessarily  infer  likewise,  that  God  explained 
to  them  the  meaning  of  the  words  die  and  live  for  ever. 
What  then  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  die  ?  As  it  is  opposed 
to  everlasting  life,  it  is  reasonable  to  infer  tliat  it  means  ever- 
lasting death;  the  meaning  of  which  must  at  least  be,  the  de- 
struction of  life  and  happiness,  and  their  destruction  for  ever. 
Tor  as  death  is  the  direct  opposite  of  life,  and  as  it  was,  in  un- 
qualified terms,  threatened  as  a  punishment,  there  could  be 
no  reason  in  the  world  for  believing  that  this  punishment 
would  ever  have  an  end. 

And  as  our  first  parents,  in  their  condition  of  innocency, 
could  have  no  idea  of  eternal  life,  but  that  of  eternal  existence 
in  a  state  of  holy  obedience  and  consequent  happiness  ;  so  they 
could  have  no  other  idea  of  death,  than  as  consisting  at  the 
least  in  the  loss  of  holiness,  happiness,  and  existence,  if  not  in 
something  worse.  Now  this  inference,  which  reason  sanctions, 

i  Col.  lii.  10 ;  and  Eph.  iv-  24.  ^  Gen.  iii.  22.  »  Gen.  ii.  17. 


78  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

the  Apostle  proves  to  be  true."  He  says,  By  one  man's  of- 
fence, viz.  that  of  Adam,  death  was  brought  upon  all  men — 
judgment  came  upon  all  men,  unto  condemnation — all  were 
bi/  nature  children  of  wrath,  having  no  hope.  But  through 
God's  mercy  in  Christ,  all  shall  be  made  aUve  again  at  the 
resurrection — the  gift  of  God,  through  Christ,  is  eternal  life. 
In  fine,  our  Saviour  is  represented  as  delivering  us  out  of  a 
state  of  wrath — bringing  us  into  a  stale  of  hope— destroying 
death — bestowing  upon  us  immortality — and  purchasing  for 
us  eternal  life  and  happiness.  But  if  God,  out  of  his  infinite 
mercy  in  Christ,  has  destroyed  death}  that  is,  has  restored 
man  to  a  state  of  life  and  immortality;  then,  in  our  natural 
state,  without  God^s  mercy  in  Christ,  death  would  have  been 
endless,  and  never  would  have  been  destroyed  ;  or  in  other 
words,  we  never  could  have  been  restored  to  a  state  of  life 
and  immortality  :  and  if  the  death  incurred  by  the  fall  were 
endless,  then  endless  punishment — (no  matter  whether  it  con- 
sisted in  annihilatfon  or  in  positive  suffering,  about  which  we 
do  not  here  inquire) — endless  punishment  was  the  punish- 
ment which,  through  the  fall,  was  brought  upon  the  whole 
human  race.  Again ;  if  God,  out  of  his  infinite  mercy  in 
Christ,  restores  us  to  a  state  of  hope,  and  gives  us  eternal  life 
and  happiness ;  then  it  is  manifest  that  the  state  of  death  into 
which  we  were  brought  by  the  fall,  was  a  hopeless  state  ;  and 
a  state  of  endless  death ;  for  otherwise  it  would  not  be  true, 
that  by  nature  we  were  without  hope-^it  would  not  be  true, 
that  eternal  life  was  given  through  Christ,  How  can  those 
be  without  hope,  who  are  the  sure  heirs  of  everlasting  life 
and  happiness  ?  How  can  eternal  life  be  given  through 
Christ,  if  mankind  were  all  the  heirs  of  eternal  life  before 
Christ,  and  independently  of  him  ?  But  if  by  nature,  and  in 
consequence  of  the  fall,  we  are  children  of  wrath,  and  heirs 
of  endless  death ;  and  if  immortal  life  and  happiness  were 
given  through  the  mediation  and  atonement  of  Christ ;  then 
the  death  threatened  to  our  first  parents  is  necessarily  endless 

w  Rom.  V.  and  vi. ;  1  Cor.  xv. ;  Eph.  ii.    See  Macknight  on  the  Epistles. 


Modern  Universalism,  79 

death,  and  endless  exclusion  from  heaven  and  happiness. 
And  if  nothing  short  of  this  can  he  the  punishment  threatened, 
then,  from  what  we  have  already  said,  it  follows,  that  God 
both  threatened  the  disobedience  of  our  first  parents  with 
endless  punishment,  and  told  them  what  the  nature  of  that 
punishment  would  be,  both  in  this  life  and  the  next — both 
with  respect  to  themselves  and  with  respect  to  their  posterity. 
For  loithout  this  knotuledge  they  could  not  possibly  be  in  a  fair 
state  of  trial. 

The  preceding  argument  appears  to  us  conclusive  and  un- 
answerable ;  and  it  proves  that  the  doctrine  of  endless  future 
punishment  was  revealed  to  our  first  parents— it  proves  that 
the  word  life,  from  the  very  beginning,  meant  a  state  of  end- 
less  existence  in  holiness  and  happiness — and  that  the  word 
death,  from  the  very  beginning,  was  revealed  to  mean,  at  the 
least,  a  state  of  endless  punishment  and  exclusion  from  heave?!, 
and  happiness — it  proves  that  eternal  life  and  happiness  were 
promised  on  the  condition  of  holy  obedience*;  and  that  eternal 
death  and  punishment  were  threatened  to  the  disobedient- 
it  proves  that,  from  the  very  creation,  everlasting  salvation 
was  promised  upon  certain  conditions  ;  and  that  those  who  did 
not 'perform  these  conditions,  had  nothing  to  expect  but  ever- 
lasting destruction  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord — and  it 
proves  that  the  doctrine  of  a  future  state  of  rewards  and  pu- 
nishments was  fully  revealed  and  known  under  the  patriarchal 
and  Mosaic  dispensations.  Some  have  denied  this  last  ar- 
ticle ;  and  have  wondered  that  the  doctrine  of  a  future  life, 
so  important  to  the  morals  and  the  happiness  of  man,  should 
have  been  so  obscurely  revealed  and  known  before  the  time 
of  our  Saviour.  The  foregoing  argument  will  show  that  this 
wonder  is  misplaced ;  and  that  it  arises  from  not  adverting  to 
the  full  and  original  signification  of  the  primitive  atid  ele- 
mentary words,  life  and  death.  These  words  were  indeed 
used  to  signify  natural  life  and  death:  but  from  Genesis  to 
Revelations,  natural  death  is,  through  the  original  compre- 
hensive meaning  of  the  word,  familiarly  associated  with  eter- 


80  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

nal  death  or  eternal  punishment.  And  whenever  this  deatfa, 
therefore,  was  threatened  as  a  punishment,  either  under  the 
patriarchal  or  Mosaic  dispensation,  this  word  death  would  as 
naturally  remind  them  of  endless  future  punishment,  as  though 
this  doctrine  had  been  taught  in  these  express  words. 

The  preceding  argument,  too,  is  equally  conclusive  against 
the  leading  doctrine  of  both  the  old  and  the  new  Universalist, 
Thej  both  maintain  that  eternal  life  and  happiness  will  be  the 
portion  of  all  mankind,  either  immediately  after  death,  or  else 
subsequently  to  a  temporary  punishment  after  death.  But 
this  cannot  be  true,  if  the  preceding  argument  be  true ;  for 
the  punishment  of  the  wicked  is  endless.  Those  also  leach  a 
false  doctrine,  who  teach  that  the  Old  Testament  Church  did 
not  believe  in  future  punishment,  or  that  it  did  not  believe  in 
endless  future  punishment.  The  preceding  argument  too 
confirms  our  previous  reasoning  from  the  light  of  nature.  We 
proved  from  reason  and  history,  that  all  mankind  have,  from 
the  beginning  of  the  world,  believed  in  a  future  state  of  re- 
ward and  punishment.  This  same  truth  we  have  now  like- 
wise proved  from  Scripture,  We  have  thus  confirmed  our 
reasonings  by  revelation,  and  traced  the  universal  belief  oj 
mankind  up  to  its  source  in  those  divine  communications  that 
were  made  to  our  frst  parents. 

But  perhaps  it  may  be  asked,  If  endless  future  puni^ment 
was  threatened  to,  and  beHeved  in  by  the  wicked,  ever  since 
the  creation  and  fall,  how  happens  it  that  mankind,  from  the 
beginning,  believed  likewise  in  future  hfe  and  happiness  ? 
We  answer ;  There  is  as  much  reason  to  believe  that  God 
would  reveal  the  one  as  the  other.  He  actually  did  reveal  it, 
in  the  promise  made  immediately  after  the  fall,  that  the  seed 
of  the  zooman  should  bruise  the  serpent^ s%ead.  For  this  pro- 
mise was  manifestlj',  among  other  purposes,  given  for  the 
purpose  of  instruction  and  comfort.  But  it  could  yield  nei- 
ther, unless  they  understood  it.  And  that  they  did  understand 
God  here  to  promise  a  Deliverer,  who  should  overcome  the 
devil,  abolish  death,  and  restore  mankind  to  the  immortality 


Modern  Universalism,  81 

fcrfeited  by  the  fall,  is  manifest  from  reason,  from  universal 
consent,  and  from  Scripture."  Why  should  sacrifices  be  insti- 
tuted immediately  after  the  fall,**  except  as  types  of  that  great 
Deliverer  who  was  then  promised,  whose  blood  was  to  cleanse 
from  all  sin,  and  who  was  to  restore  to  man  his  forfeited  pri- 
vileges— and  who  can  suppose  that  God  would  institute  sacri- 
fices, without  explaining  to  man  their  signification  ?  The  ac- 
ceptance of  AbeFs  offering,  who  offered  in  faith,  and  the 
rejection  of  Cain's  ;  and  hkewise  the  declaration  to  Cain — If 
thou  doest  well,  shalt  thou  not  be  accepted  ?  and  if  thou  doest 
not  well,  sin  (or,  as  it  ought  probably  to  be  rendered,  a  sin 
offering)  lieth  at  the  door ;  both  prove  that  they  knew  how 
to  please  God,  and  how  they  might  secure  his  favour. 

But  that  they  had  the  knowledge  of  a  future  life,  we  have 
already  jDroz>ec?  elsewhere — and  we  have  likewise  proved,  that 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  Bible,  future  life  and 
happiness  are  promised  upon  the  condition  of  holy  obedience 
to  God's  commandments  ;  while  death,  that  is,  eternal  punishr 
ment  and  exclusion  from  heaven,  are  uniformly  threatened 
against  all  those  who  do  not  thus  obey.  It  follows,  therefore, 
from  what  we  have  said  on  this  point,  that  whenever  God 
said.  Obey  and  you  shall  live — disobey  and  you  dieP — he  was 
always  understood  to  promise  eternal  happiness,  and  threaten 
eternal  punishment  after  death.  In  this  sense  both  the  Jewish 
and  Christian  Church  understood  these  passages.  Upon  this 
subject  it  was  impossible  they  should  universally  have  erred. 
And  it  follows,  therefore,  that  the  Universalist  doctrine,  which 
denies  all  this,  cannot  possibly  be  true,  but  must  necessarily 
be  unscriptural  and  false. 

Should  the  Universalist  here  say.  We  admit  that  God 
threatened,  and  that  man  would  have  suffered  endless  punish* 
ment,  if  it  halfll  not  been  for  his  mercy  displayed  through 
Christ ;  but  we  believe  that  through  this  mercy  in  Christ,  all 
mankind  shall  be  saved  ;   because  God  expressly  declares, 

n  See  Faber  on  the  Dispensations.        o  See  Magee  on  the  Atonement. 
P  Gen.  ii.  17;  Lev.  xviii.  5;  Prov.  vii.  2;  Ezek.  xviii.  and  xxxiii;  Heb- 
il4;  Si.  John  v,  24;  Rom.  vui.  6;  Col.  ii.  ami  in. 

n 


gS'  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

that,  by  Christ  all  shall  be  made  alive.  He  tasted  death  for 
every  man.  He  is  the  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world.  He  is  the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sins  of 
the  world. 

On  this  we  observe  first,  You  admit  theu,  that  the  Univer- 
galist  is  in  error^  when  he  asserts  that  God  never  threatened 
any  punishment  after  death — and  that  be  is  in  error,  when  he 
says,  we  have  no  more  to  fear  from  the  justice  than  from  the 
mercy  of  God,  You  admit  then  that  endless  future  punish- 
ment has  from  the  beginning  been  threatened  against  impeni- 
tent sinners  ;  but  maintain  that  it  is,  after  all,  a  mere  bugbear, 
because  God's  mercy  in  Christ  delivers  the  wicked  as  well  as 
the  righteous  from  all  punishment  after  death.  And  you 
maititain,^  that  though  God  uses  the  same  language,  both  in  the 
Old  and  New  Testament — language  in  which  he  threatens 
endless  future  punishment  to  the  wicked,  yet  God  will  break 
his  word,  contradict  himself,  and  even  be  guilty  of  false 
swearing,  in  order  to  save  the  wicked !  All  these  conse- 
quences flow  from  your  admission  and  your  doctrine.  But 
these  consequences  cannot  possibly  be  true,  and  therefore 
your  doctrine  cannot  be  true, 

H.  We  have  already  shown  from  reason,  from  histdry,  and 
from  revelation,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Universalist  cannot 
possibly  be  true  :  but  we  may  add  here  the  following  argu- 
ment:— St.  John  in  the  Revelations  says,^  He  that  over- 
cometh  shall  not  be  hurt  of  the  second  death.  Be  thou  faithful 
unto  death,  and  I  will  give  thee  a  crown  of  life.  On  such, 
(viz.  the  souls  of  martyrs,)  the  second  death  hath  no  power. 
Death  and  hell  (Hades)  were  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire.  This 
is  the  second  death.  And  whosoever  was  not  found  written  in 
the  book  of  life,  was  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire,.  The  fearful, 
and  unbelieving,  and  the  abominable,  and  murderers,  and 
whoremongers,  and  sorcerers,  and  idolaters,  and  all  bars, 
shall  have  their  part  in  the  lake  which  burneth  with  fire  and 
brimstone,  which  is  the  second  death.  There  shall  in  no  wise 

*i  Rev<  ii.  XX.xxi.  and  ssli. 


Modern  Universaltsnio  $8 

enter  into  it — (viz,  the  new  heaven  and  new  earth — the  new 
Jerusalem,  the  heavenly  city,  where  God,  and  the  Lamb,  and 
their  faithful  servants,  reign  in  bliss  fcwr  ever  and  ever) — there 
shall  in  no  wise  enter  into  it  any  thing  that  ^Jefileth,  neither 
whatsoever  worketh  abomination,  or  maketh  a  liej  but  they 
which  are  written  in  the  Lamb's  book  of  life.  He  that  is  un- 
just, let  him  be  unjust  still  5  and  he  that  is  holy,  let  him  be 
holy  still.  Behold,  1  come  quickly  ;  and  my  reward  is  with 
me,  to  give  every  man  as  his  work  shall  be.  Blessed  are  they 
that  do  his  commandments,  that  they  may  lutve  a  right  to  the 
tree  cf  life^  and  may  enter  in,  through  the  gates,  into  the 
city.  For  without  are  dogs,  and  sorcerers,  and  whoremongers, 
and  murderers,  and  idolaters,  and  whosoever  loveth  and 
juaketh  a  lie. 

St.  John  here  speaks  of  what  is  to  take  place  after  the  first 
death — rafter  the  resurrection — and  indeed  in  the  day  of  judg- 
ment. He  mentions  two  descriptions  of  character — those  who 
overcome  sin,  who  keep  God's  commandments,  who  are  holy 
and  faithful  unto  death,  and  whose  names  are  written  in  the 
book  of  life— and  those  on  the  other  hand,  who  are  unholy 
and  whose  names  are  not  written  in  the  book  of  life.  To 
these  two  different  descriptions  of  character  he  assigns  two 
<lifferent  places,  and  two  different  conditions.  The  holy  re- 
ceive a  crown  of  life — they  have  a  right  to  the  tree  of  life 

they  enter  into  the  new  heaven  and  holy  Jerusalem,  where 
God  and  the  Lamb  reside,  and  where  they  reign  with  him  in 
bhss  for  ever.  The  unholy  are  excluded  from  this  blissful 
place — they  are  cast  into  the  lake  which  burneth  with  fire 
and  brimstone — they  die  the  second  death.  Thus  God  re- 
wards every  one  according  to  his  works. 

Now  could  life  and  death,  future  happiness  and  future  pu- 
nishment, be  set  before  us  in  plainer  or  stronger  terms .''  Is 
the  lake  which  burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone  a  place  of  en- 
joyment ?  Is  it  a  desirable  thing  to  be  shut  out  from  heaven 
from  the  presence  of  God  and  the  society  of  the  blessed  .''  O 
Universalism,  how  shockingly  dost  thou  pervert  the  oracles 
of  truth !    0  sinner,  how  shall  you  escape,  if  you  neglect  the 


j54  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

great  salvation !     If  the  righteous  scarcely  be  saved,  where 
«hall  the  sinner  and  the  ungodly  appear?' 

But  the  Universalist  alleges  that  he  brings  direct  proof 
from  Scripture  in  favour  of  his  doctrine,  when  he  quotes 
those  passages  which  state,  that,  through  Christ,  all  shall  be 
made  alive— that  he  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world,  &c. 
Answer :  The  whole  system  of  Universalism,  like  all  other  he* 
resies,  is  built  upon  equivocal  passages  of  Scripture — those 
passages  that  admit  of  two  different  interpretations,  either  na- 
tural or  forced.  In  interpreting  all  such  passages,  it  is  a  uni- 
versally admitted  rule,  that  we  must  give  them  that  significa- 
tion which  agrees  best  with  the  general  character  and  design 
of  Scripture — that  we  must  never  interpret  one  passage  so 
as  plainly  to  contradict  another ;  for  the  Scriptures  cannot 
possibly  contradict  themselves — and  that  of  different  mean- 
ings, that  which  is  the  most  natural,  and  has  the  least  difficul- 
ties to  contend  with,  is  to  be  preferred.  Now  we  have  al- 
ready proved,  that  the  leading  doctrine  of  the  Universalist  is 
both  unreasonable  and  unscriptural ;  and  cannot  possibly  be 
true,  if  the  Scriptures  are  true.  Should,  therefore,  any  equi- 
vocal passage  admit  of  one  interpretation  which  was  favour- 
able to  the  Universalist  doctrine,  we  should  still,  according 
to  the  above  rule,  be  obliged  to  reject  it  as  untenable,  and 
give  to  it  that  other  signififcation  which  agrees  best  with  the 
analogy  of  faith,  and  the  character  of  Scripture  and  of  God. 
Thus,  all  shall  be  made  alive  again,  through  Christ,  may  have 
two  meanings — at  least  we  will  admit  this  for  the  present,  as 
we  cannot  stay  here  to  dispute — it  may  either  mean  that  all 
uhall  be  made  happy  for  ever  through  Christ,  or  that  all  shall 
hereafter  be  raised  to  life  again,  and  at  the  resurrection  have 
their  souls  and  bodies  reunited.  But  the  first  of  these  inter- 
pretations cannot  be  the  true  one,  for  it  contradicts  other 
parts  of  Scripture;  and  neither  God  nor  his  word  can  contra- 
dict themselves.  The  other  interpretation  then  must  neces- 
sarily be  adopted,  and  be  the  true  one  ;  for  it  agrees  perfectly 
-with  otlier  parts  of  holy  writ.     We  shall  all  be  raised  from 

j:  1  Pet.  iv.  19. 


Modern  Universalism,  8d 

the  dead.  There  shall  be,  says  St.  Paul,  a  resurrection  of 
the  dead,  both  of  the  just  and  unjust.^  But  after  the  resur- 
rection to  a  state  of  eternal  existence,  our  souls  and  bodies 
having  been  reunited,  we  shall  all  be  rewarded  or  punished 
according  to  our  characters  and  our  works.  Many  of  themf 
says  Daniel — or  rather,  according  to  the  original,*  the  multi' 
tudes  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake, 
some  to  everlasting  Hfe,  and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting 
contempt.  And  our  blessed  Saviour  declares,  that  the  time  is 
coming,  in  which  all  loho  are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  the  voice 
of  the  Son  of  man,  and  shall  come  forth  ;  they  that  have  done 
good,  unto  the  resurrection  of  life  ;  and  they  that  have  done 
evil,  unto  the  resurrection  of  damnation." 

From  all  this  it  is  manifest  that  Daniel  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment teaches  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment;  since  ever- 
lasting shame  and  contempt,  as  contrasted  with  everlasting 
life,  can  mean  nothing  less.  It  is  manifest  too,  that  though 
Christ  tasted  death  for  every  man,  and  all  are  made  alive 
again  at  the  resurrection  by  him,  still  this  only  is  for  the  pur- 
pose of  rewarding  or  punishing  every  one  according  to  his 
works,  and  bestowing  upon  them  salvation  or  damnation  ac- 
/Cordingly  as  they  have  done  good  or  evil. 

In  the  same  manner  we  understand  the  Scriptures,  when 
they  say  that  Christ  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world,  and 
'that  he  is  the  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world. 
He  has  delivered  the  whole  human  race  from  their  state  of 
wrath  by  nature — he  has  redeemed  them  from  that  curse 
which  subjected  them  to  eternal  death — he  has  removed  all 
those  original  disqualifications  which  made  their  salvation 
impossible — he  has  placed  them  under  a  new  and  gracious 
covenant,  better  suited  to  their  fallen  nature — he  has  restored 
to  them  the  immortality  they  had  forfeited — and  furnished 
them  with  those  influences  of  the  Spirit  which  are  sufficient 
to  sanctify  every  sinner — with  that  atoning  blood  which 
eleanseth  from  all  sin — and  in  fine,  with  all  the  means  of 

«  Acts  xxlv.  15.        t  See  Parkhurst  and  Gesenius  on  the  original  word. 
'I  Dan.  xii.  2 ;  John  v.  28. 


$5  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

grace  and  salvation.  But  after  all  this,  final  salvation  is  an 
inheritance  toe  may  forfeit.  If  we  live  and  die  in  sin,  God  will 
disiaJierit  us.  All  who  do  not  bj  personal,  wilful  sin,  that  is 
Tinrepented  of,  forfeit  the  immortal  life  and  happiness  pur- 
chased for  them  by  the  mediation  and  atoning  blood  of  Christ 
•—all  such  shall  be  saved  with  an  everlasting  salvation  in  hea- 
ven. And  this,  as  our  Church  teaches,  is  the  case  with  all 
idiots,  all  who  die  in  infancy  and  early  childhood,  and  with  all 
moral  agents,  who,  though  they  sin,  do  nevertheless  repent, 
and  are  found  in  a  state  of  holiness  at  death.  But  to  all  who 
are  moral  agents— all  except  infants  and  idiots,  final  salva- 
tion is  offered  upon  certain  conditions  :  and  if,  while  God  works 
within  us  to  enable  us  to  will  and  to  do  according  to  his  plea- 
sure, we  do  not  give  all  diligence  to  work  out  our  salvation 
by  a  life  of  holy  obedience,  aur  awful  portion  and  inheritance 
must  be  all  that  endless  future  punishment  which  is  set  forth 
in  Scripture  under  the  appalling  expressions  of  the  second 
death — the  worm  that  dieth  not— the  lire  that  is  not  quenched 
—everlasting  destruction  and  everlasting  burnings  i 

Universaiism  pretends  to  bring  many  other  passages  as  di- 
rect witnesses  in  its  favour;  but  they  all  admit  of  two  differ- 
ent interpretations.  The  above  principle  and  remarks,  there- 
fore, are  a  sufficient  answer  to  them  all.  According  to  the 
ordinary  rules  of  construction,  the  Universalist  interpretation 
is  necessarily  wrong,  and  the  orthodox  interpretation  is  the 
only  one  that  can  be  true. 

We  have  thus  then  again  proved,  by  a  separate  chain  of 
reasoning,  that  a  future  state  of  endless  rewards  and  punish- 
ments was  made  known  from  the  very  beginning  of  the  world ; 
and  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Universalist  is  therefore  at  va- 
riance with  the  language  and  the  meaning  of  Scripture,  from 
Genesis  to  Revelations.  For  throughout  God's  word,  eternal 
life  and  happiness  are  promised  conditionally  to  all  moral 
agents.  We  have,  however,  said  enough  upon  this  first  head ; 
and  we  proceed  therefore  to  our  second  proof  from  Scripture. 

2dly.  That  those  who  do  not  comply  with  the  conditions 
upon  which  salvation  is  offered  in  the  Gospel,  cannot  be 
admitted  to  eternal  life  and  happiness,  is  manifest  from 


Modern  UniversaUsm^  87 

various  passages,  which  declare  that  the  wicked  shall  not  enter 
heaven.     But  heaven  is  the  only  place  of  happiness   after 
death.     If  not  admitted  to  heaven,  they  cannot  possibly  be 
saved,  but  are  necessarily  punished  with  everlasting  destruc- 
tion.    The  following  passages  will  prove  this  assertion : — 
Except  your  righteousness  shall  exceed  the  righteousness  of 
the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  ye  shall  in  no  case  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.     Not  every  one,  that  saith  unto  me, 
Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but  he 
which  doeth  the  will  of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven.  Except 
ye  be  converted,  and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.*    Know  ye  not,  that  the 
unrighteous  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  ?     Be 
not  deceived:   neither  fornicators,  nor  idolaters,  nor  adul- 
terers, nor  effeminate,  nor  abusers  of  themselves  with  man- 
kind, nor  theives,  nor  covetous,  nor  drunkards,  nor  revilers, 
nor  extortioners,  shall  inherit  the  kingdom   of  God.     The 
works  of  the  flesh  are  manifest,  which  are  these,  Adultery, 
fornication,  uncleanness,  lasciviousness,  idolatry,  witchcraft, 
hatred,  variance,  emulations,  wrath,  strife,  seditions,  heresies, 
envyings,  murders,  drunkenness,  revellings,  and  such  like  ;  of 
the  which  I  tell  you  before,  as  I  have  also  told  you  in  time 
past,  that  they  which  do  such  things,  shall  not  inherit  the 
kingdom  of  God.     No  whoremonger,  nor  unclean  person,  nor 
covetous  man  who  is  an  idolater,  hath  any  inheritance  in  the 
kingdom  of  God  and  of  Christ.y 

I  know  of  no  sophistry  that  can  elude  the  force  of  the  above 
passages.  Let  it  not  be  said,  that  the  kiogdom  of  God  some- 
times signifies  the  visible  Church  on  earth.  It  cannot  have 
that  meaning  in  the  above  passages,  because  in  that  sense, 
they  would  not  be  true.  All  the  above  mentioned  sinners  are 
found  in  the  visible  Church  on  earth..  There  the  tares  and 
the  wheat  grow  together.  If  then  they  are  shut  out  from  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  it  must  be  in  another  world.  Let  it  not 
be  said,  the  kingdom  of  God  means  trm  religionin  the  hearty 

»  Matt.  V.  20 ;  vii.  21 ;  Mark  x.  15. 

»  Mark  x.  23, 24, 25;  I  Cor.  vi,  9, 10;  Gfil  r.  19,  20, 21 ;  Eph.  v.  5. 


8S  Remarks  on  the  dislinguishhig  Docirint  of 

and  that  the  foregoing  passages  only  mean  that  the  wicked 
cannot  ejijoy  true  religion.  This  cannot  be  its  meaning,  be- 
cause it  reduces  these  passages  to  the  level  of  pompons  trifles. 
Thej  assert,  what  nobody  ever  doubted,  and  what  need  not 
have  been  asserted  at  all,  because  common  sense  and  expe- 
rience teach  this  to  every  body.  This  cannot  be  its  meaning, 
for  it  is  inconsistent  with  good  sense.  Was  the  declaration 
the  wjcked  shall  not  sec,  that  is,  experience  or  enjoy  the 
kingdom  of  God,  this  interpretation  might  be  more  plausible. 
But  the  word,  in  numerous  passages  is,  enter  ^  and  it  is  next  to 
nonsense  to  say,  the  wicked  shall  not  enter  into  the  religion  of 
their  own  hearts*  But  lastly,  this  cannot  be  the  meaning  of 
the  phrase  kingdom  of  heaven;  because  the  primitive  Chris- 
tians certainly  best  understood  the  meaning  of  this  phrase  ;  and 
they  uniformly  interpreted  the  above  passages,  in  the  same  sense 
we  have  interpreted  them.  It  was  impossible  for  them  to  be 
mistaken  on  so  important  a  point,  as  we  have  already  proved  j 
5ind  therefore  it  is  impossible  that  the  above  gloss  of  the 
Universalist  should  be  true.  On  the  contrary,  these  passages 
prove  the  Universalist  doctrine  to  be  unscriptural  and  false. 

3dly.  We  prove  the  Universalist  doctrine  false  and  impos- 
sible^ from  the  following  argument  :-^— Scarcely  any  doctrine, 
besides  the  Being  of  God,  has  been  so  universally  received 
by  all  mankind,  in  all  ages  of  the  worlds  as  the  doctrine  of  a 
future  judgment.  Nor  was  this  doctrine  merely  a  theme  for 
lawgivers  and  philosophers,  poets  and  divines.  But  it  was 
among  all  r\2,iiox\%^  familiarly  appealed  to  in  common  conversa- 
tion, as  an  established  truth.  And  that  the  Israelites  and  Jews 
agreed  in  this  with  the  rest  of  mankind,  is  evident  from  the 
authorities  already  quoted. 

Now  in  the  doctrine  of  a  future  judgment  these  three  things 
have  always  been  understood  to  be  necessarily  implied.  That 
men  would  be  called  to  an  account,  after  death,  for  their  con- 
duct in  this  world.  That  God  would  then  judge  them  accord- 
ing to  their  works  and  characters.  That  the  righteous  would 
then  be  rewarded  and  made  happy,  and  that  the  wicked  would 
then  likewise  be  punished  and  made  to  suffer  according  to  the 
desert  of  their  sins.    If  then  the  Scriptures  teach  that  there 


Modern  Universalism*  8& 

will  be  a  future  judgment,  they  likewise  teach  a  future  state 
of  reward  and  punishment:  for  both  of  these  are  necessarily 
implied  in  a  future  judgment.  The  following  passages  fronn 
Scripture  will  make  this  point  plain,  and  this  argument  against 
Universalism  unanswerable. 

It  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die,  but  after  this  the 
judgment,^  says  the  Apostle.  St.  John,  giving  an  account  of 
the  last  day,  says,»  The  sea  gave  up  the  dead  which  were  in 
it ;  and  death  and  hell  (hades)  delivered  up  the  dead  which 
were  in  them.  That  is,  the  graves  surrendered  their  bodies, 
and  hades  gave  up  their  souls.  And  their  souls  and  bodies 
having  been  reunited  at  the  resurrection,  they  were  now  pre- 
pared to  stand  before  the  judgment-bar  of  God.  St.  John 
therefore  goes  on  :  1  saw  the  dead,  small  and  great,  stand  be- 
fore God :  and  the  books  were  opened  :  and  another  book 
was  opened,  which  is  the  book  of  life :  and  the  dead  were 
judged  out  of  those  things  which  were  written  in  the  books, 
according  to  their  works;  and  whosoever  was  not  found  writ- 
ten in  the  book  of  life,  was  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire.  Again, 
our  blessed  Saviour  declares  that  it  shall  be  more  tolerable  for 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah  in  the  day  of  judgment,  than  it  will  be 
for  those  who  refuse  to  receive  and  obey  the  preached  Gos- 
pel— and  that  it  shall  be  more  tolerable  for  Tyre  and  Sidon 
at  the  day  of  judgment,  than  for  those  who  saw  his  mighty 
works,  and  still  did  not  repent.  And  St.  Paul  tells  Timothy, 
that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  shall  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead 
when  he  appears  in  his  kingdom.'' 

Hear  the  proof  too,  that  a  future  judgment  was  foretold  and 
expected  under  the  Old  Testament,  even  from  the  beginning. 
Jude  having  told  us  that  the  apostate  angels  are  reserved  in 
everlasting  chains,  under  darkness,  unto  the  judgment  of  the 
great  day,  declares  expressly— Enoch,  the  seventh  from  Adam, 
prophecied  of  the  wicked,  saying.  Behold,  the  Lord  cometh 
with  ten  thousand  of  his  saints,  to  execute  judgment  upon  all; 
and  to  convince  all  that  arc  ungodly  among  them,  of  all  their 

2  Heb.  is.  27.        »  Rev.  xx.        ^  Matt,  x,  and  x\. ;  §  Tim.  iv.  1 

12 


90  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

ungodly  deeds  which  they  have  ungodly  committed,  and  of  all 
Iheir  hard  speeches  which  ungodly  sinners  have  spoken  against 
him.  Solomon  says,  God  shall  judge  the  righteous  and  the 
wicked.  Rejoice,  O  young  man,  in  thy  youth  ;  and  let  thy 
heart  cheer  thee  in  the  days  of  thy  youth,  and  walk  in  the 
ways  of  thine  heart,  and  in  the  sight  of  thine  eyes  :  but  know 
thou  that  for  all  these  things  God  will  bring  thee  into  judg- 
ment. Let  us  hear  the  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter — Fear 
God  and  keep  his  commandments  :  for  this  is  the  whole  duty 
of  man.  For  God  shall  bring  every  work  into  judgment,  with 
every  secret  thing,  whether  it  be  good,  or  whether  it  be  evil.*^ 
T(^the  above  let  the  following  passages  be  added : — For 
we  must  all  appear  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ,  that 
every  one  may  receive  the  things  done  in  his  body,  according 
to  that  be  hath  done,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad.  But  I  say 
unto  you,  that  every  idle  word  that  men  shall  speak,  they  shall 
give  account  (hereof  in  the  day  of  judgment.  God  shall  judge 
the  secrets  of  men  by  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  the  Gospel. 
Judge  nothing  before  the  time,  until  the  Lord  come,  who  both 
will  bring  to  light  the  hidden  things  of  darkness,  and  will  make 
manifest  the  counsels  of  the  hearts.  God  now  commandeth 
all  men  every  where  to  repent ;  because  be  hath  appointed  a 
day,  in  the  which  he  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness  by 
that  man  whom  he  hath  ordained ;  whereof  he  hath  given 
assurance  unto  all  men,  in  that  he  hath  raised  him  from  the 
dead.  Thinkest  thou,  O  man,  that  thou  shalt  escape  the  judg- 
ment of  God  ?  Or  despisest  thou  the  riches  of  his  goodness, 
and  forbearance,  and  long-suffering;  not  knowing  that  the 
goodness  of  God  leadeth  thee  t©  repentance  ?  But,  after  thy 
hardness  and  impenitent  heart,  treasurest  up  unto  thyself 
wralh  against  the  day  of  wrath  and  revelation  of  the  rrghteous 
judgment  of  God ;  who  will  render  to  every  man  according  to 
his  deeds.  To  them  who,  by  patient  continuance  in  well- 
doing, seek  for  glory,  and  honour,  and  immortality,  eternal 
life :  but  unto  them  that  are  contentious,  and  do  not  obey  the 

c  Jude;  Eccles.  iii,  17;  xi.  9;  and  xii.  13. 


Modern  Universalism,  91 

truth,  but  obey  unrighteousness,  indignation  and  wrath,  tri- 
bulation and  anguish,  upon  every  soul  of  man  that  doeth  evil. 
For  as  many  as  have  sinned  without  law,  shall  also  perish 
without  law ;  and  as  many  as  have  sinned  in  the  law,  shall 
be  judged  by  the  law.     For  not  the  hearers  of  the  law  are 
just  before  God,  but  the  doers  of  the  law  shall  be  justified. 
Again ;  for  if  God  spared  not  the  angels  that  sinned,  but  cast 
them  down  to  hell,  and  delivered  them  into  chains  of  dark- 
ness, to  be  reserved  unto  judgment ;  and  spared  not  the  old 
world,  but  saved  Noe,  the  eighth  person,  a  preacher  of  righte- 
ousness, bringing  in  the  flood  upon  the  world  of  the  ungodly ; 
and  turning  the  cities  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  into  ashes, 
condemned  them  with  an  overthrow,  making  them  an  en- 
sample  unto  those  that  after  should  live  ungodly ;  the  Lord 
knoweth  how  to  deliver  the  godly  out  of  temptations,  and  to 
reserve  the  unjust  unto  the  day  of  judgment  to  be  punished. 
The  heavens  and  the  earth  which  are  now,  are  kept  in  store,  re- 
served U7ito  Jire,  against  the  day  oj"  judgment  and  perdition  of 
ungodly  men.     For  the  day  of  the  Lord  will  come  as  a  thief 
in  the  night ;  in  the  which  the  heavens  shall  pass  away  with 
a  great  noise,  and  the  elements  shall  melt  with  fervent  heat, 
the  earth  also,  and  the  works  that  are  therein,  shall  be  burnt 
up.    Seeing  then  that  all  these  things  shall  be  dissolved,  what 
manner  of  persons  ought  ye  to  be,  in  all  holy  conversation 
and  godliness  ;  looking  for  and  hasting  unto  the  coming  of  the 
day  of  God,  wherein  the  heavens  being  on  fire  shall  be  dis- 
solved, and  the  elements  shall  melt  with  fervent  heat .''     Ne- 
vertheless we,  according  to  his  promise,  look  for  new  heavens 
and  a  new  earth,  wherein  dwelleth  righteousness.  WhereforCj 
beloved,  seeing  that  ye  look  for  such  things,  be  diligent  that 
ye  may  be  found  of  hiiti  in  peace,  without  spot  and  blame- 
less."^ 

Now  from  all  these  passages  it  is  irresistibly  evident,  that 
both  the  Old  and  New  Testament  teach  the  doctrine  of  a  fu- 

d  2  Cor.  V.  10;  Matt.  xli.  36;  Rom.ii.  16;  ICor.  iv.  5;  Acts  xvii.  30,  31 ; 
Rom.  ii.  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9, 12, 13 ;  2  Pet.  ii.  4,  5,  6,  9 ;  and  iii.  7,  10,  11,  12, 
23, 14. 


92  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

ture  judgment ;  and  that  all  those  three  things  which  are  ne- 
cessarily implied  in  a  future  judgment,  and  which  all  mankind 
have  believed  in,  are  likewise  comprised  in  the  judgment 
spoken  of  in  Scripture.  It  is  undeniably  plain,  that  the  final 
judgment  takes  place  after  death;  for  the  dead  are  to  be 
raised  to  life-^their  souls  and  bodies  are  to  be  reunited — and 
then  they  will  be  brought  to  judgment.  It  is  undeniably  plain, 
not  only  that  the  wicked  will  be  punished,  but  also  that  there 
will  be  different  degrees  of  punishment ;  for  the  wicked  in- 
habitants of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  Tyre  and  Sidon,  shall 
suffer  less  severely  than  those  will  who  do  not  repent,  and 
will  not  obey  the  Gospel.  And  it  is  undeniably  plain,  that 
the  wicked  are  without  hope  beyond  the  grave.  As  Lazarus 
said  to  Dives,*  they  have  their  good  things  in  this  life  ;  as 
the  psalmist  says,'^  they  have  their  portion  in  this  world  ;  and 
as  our  blessed  Saviour  asserted,^  Woe  unto  you  that  are  rich, 
for  ye  have  received  your  consolation.  For  as  the  Apostle 
declares,**  if  we  sin  wilfully,  after  that  we  have  received  the 
knowledge  of  ihe  truth,  there  remaineth  no  more  sacrifice  for 
sins,  but  a  certain  fearful  looking  for  of  judgment,  and  fiery 
indignation,  which  shall  devour  the  adversaries.  He  that 
despised  Moses'  law,  died  without  mercy  under  two  or  three 
witnesses  ;  of  how  much  sorer  punishment,  suppose  ye,  shall 
he  be  thought  worthy,  who  hath  trodden  under  foot  the  Son 
of  God,  and  hath  counted  the  blood  of  the  covenant  where- 
with he  was  sanctified  an  unholy  thing,  and  hath  done  despite 
unto  the  Spirit  of  grace  ?  For  we  know  him  that  hath  said, 
Vengeance  belongeth  unto  me  ;  I  will  recompense,  saith  the 
Lord.  And  again,  The  Lord  shall  judge  his  people.  It  is  a 
fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  living  God. 

We  have  now  then  proved  from  Scripture,  by  three  distinct 
series  of  arguments,  that  the  wicked  will  be  punished,  and 
punished  for  ever,  in  another  world.  In  some  of  our  argu- 
ments, numerous  passages  of  Scripture  are  adduced  to  prove 

e  Luke  xvi.  f  Psa.  xvii.  ff  Luke  vi.  24. 

1'  Heb.  X.  26,  27,  23,  29,  SO,  31. 


Modern  Universaliam.  .  93 

our  point;  and  each  clear  passage  is,  in  itself,  a  proof  of  a 
future  retribution.  Any  one  of  these  passages,  and  particu- 
larly any  one  of  these  series  of  arguments,  is  sufficient  to 
prove  the  doctrine  of  the  Universalist  unscriplural  and  false  ; 
and  all  of  them  taken  together,  show  to  a  demonstration,  that 
Universalism  cannot  possibly  be  true,  but  must  necessarily  be 
false.  The  Universalist  doctrine  cannot  possibly  be  true, 
because  it  directly  contradicts  the  Scripture.  God  promises 
eternal  life  and  happiness  only  upon  certain  conditions.  The 
Universalist  says,  we  shall  obtain  eternal  life  and  happiness 
whether  we  perform  those  conditions  or  not. — God  says,  the 
wicked  shall  not  be  admitted  into  heaven.  The  UnivCTsalist 
says,  they  shall. — God  says,  the  wicked  shall  all  be  punished 
after  death,  at  the  day  of  judgment.  The  Universalist  says, 
there  is  no  judgment,  neither  is  there  any  punishment  for  the 
wicked  after  death. — Could  any  system  of  errors  more  flatly 
and  directly  contradict  the  Scriptures  ?  Could  any  doctrine 
be  to  a  believer  in  divine  revelation  more  palpably  absurd 
and  impossible  ? 

Thus  then  we  have  proved  from  other  parts  of  holy  writ, 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  Universalist  is  false  ;  and  we  have 
proved  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  endless  future  punishment, 
without  taking  ijilp.>thet*a^c^*iyij<^^ of  those  passages  upon 
which  Universalists  lay  so  much  stress.  Those  passages  then 
are  not  necessary  to  the  suppon^of  this  doctrine:  for  this 
doctrine  is  abundantly  taught  without  them,  both  by  reason 
and  revelation.  Here  again  we  might  safely  drop  the  subject. 
But  it  is.  natural  to  inquire.  How  do  you  answer  the  main  ar- 
guments in  favour  of  Universalism?  This  we  therefore  pro- 
ceed now  briefly  to  do,  as  the  subject  would  be  incomplete 
without  it. 

To  all  the  arguments  of  the  Universalist  in  order  to  prove 
their  scheme  from  Scripture,  we  answer  as  follows  : — 

1st.  Their  reasoning  about  the  meaning  of  Scripture  proves 
nothing,  and  yields  no  support  to  their  doctrine,  because  it  is 
fallacious  and  false  reasoning. 


94  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

2d.  Their  interpretation  of  Scripture  passages  cannot  pos- 
sibly be  the  true,  but  must  necessarily  he  a  false  interpretation^ 
because  it  is  contrary  to  the  sense  in  which  the  inspired 
writers  and  teachers  understood,  and  intended  them  to  be 
understood.  Our  answer  is  then  in  brief — Their  reasoning  is 
false — their  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  false — therefore 
their  whole  system  is  false. 

1st.  Their  reasoning  is  sophistical,  and  leads  to  false  con- 
clusions, because  they  build  their  doctrine  upon  a  few  pas- 
sages, and  not  upon  an  impartial  examination  of  all  the  pas- 
sages relating  to  the  subject.  Thus,  for  instance,  they  lay 
much  stress  upon  the  passages  in  which  the  words  hell  and 
everlasting  are  found,  and  upon  certain  other  passages,  which 
seem  to  promise  eternal  life  and  happiness  to  every  individual 
of  the  whole  human  race  ;  but  they  leave  out  of  the  account 
many  other  passages  relating  to  this  subject,  some  of  which 
we  have  adduced,  and  all  of  which,  taken  together,  completely 
and  unanswerably  prove  a  future  state  of  reward  and  punish- 
ment. Now  this  mode  of  reasoning  necessarily  leads  to  error, 
because  partial  views  of  Scripture  necessarily  lead  to  error. 
The  whole  of  revealed  truth,  upon  any  one  point,  cannot 
possibly  be  obtained,  without  taking  into  view  all  the  passages 

relating  to  that  ^o'^^^'^^^^^^^C  ^M 

Further;  if  the  abov^  reasoning  of  the  Universalist  be 
true,  then  the  Univers^!ilif^  has  nothing  to  answer  to  the 
Gnostic  and  'the  Antinomian.  The  Gnostic  says.  Though  I 
live  a  wicked  life,  still  I  please  and  am  acceptable  to  God ; 
because  God  requires  from  man  nothing  hut  religious  know- 
ledge^ and  promises  eternal  hfe  to  those  that  possess  it.  For 
he  says,  This  is  life  eternal  to  know  thee^  the  only  true  God, 
and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent.  The  Antinomian  says, 
^Nothing  but  faith  is  necessary  to  please  God.  As  therefore 
there  is  no  need  of  good  works,  though  I  live  a  wicked  life, 
still  1  please  God,  because  he  requires  nothing  but  faith  :  for 
he  says,  Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou  sbalt  be 
saved.  Here  the  Gnostic  and  the  Antinomian  reason  pre- 
cisely like  the  Universalist.     They  take  a  part  of  Scripture, 


Modern  Universalism,  95 

and  build  their  whole  system  upon  it,  without  any  regard  to 
other  passages :  and  thus  they  profess  to  prove,  that  God  re- 
quires neither  obedience,  holiness,  nor  good  works.     If  thig 
reasoning  is  true,  then  the  Universalist  is  in  error,  when  he 
insists  upon  good  works  and  a  holy  life  :  but  if  this  reasoning 
is  false,  then  the  reasoning  of  the  Universalist  against  future 
punishment  is  likewise  false.     That  however  the  above  rea- 
soning is  false,  the  Universalist  himself  will  loudly  maintain ; 
for  he  teaches  that  we  ought  to  live  a  life  of  holy  obedience 
to  God's  commandments  ;  and  he  will  very  correctly  reason 
thus  : — Truth  and  duty  are  to  be  learned  from  the  whole  of 
Scripture,  and  not  from  any  particular  part.     That  faith  and 
religious  knowledge  are  necessary  to  please  God,  is  true  : 
but  this  is  only  part  of  what  is  necessary  :  other  things  like- 
wise are  necessary,  and  these  we  learn  from  other  passages. 
These  other  passages  tell  us  that  we  must  not  only  possess 
religious  knowledge,  but  we  must  also  practise  according  to  it 
— we  must  not  only  believe,  but  we  must  also  obey  all  the  com- 
mandments of  God,     Now  we  are  as  much  bound  to  govern 
ourselves  by  one  part  of  Scripture  as  by  another;  and  there- 
fore all  these  passages  must  be  considered,  before  we  can 
know  the  whole  of  our  duty  on  this  point.     To  know,  for  in- 
stance, whether  we  have  the  right  faith  or  belief,  all  the  fol* 
lowing  passages  must  be  laid  together :  and  he  who  judges  of 
the  right  faith  from  any  number  of  passages  short  of  the 
whole,  must  necessarily  form  an  imperfect  juiigment;  for 
each  passage  forms  a  constituent  member  of  the  whole  of 
what  Scripture  teaches  on  the  subject  of  faith ;  and  our  idea 
of  true  faith  can  no  more  be  perfect  without  taking  every  con- 
stituent into  the  account,  than  a  body  can  be  perfect  while  it 
wants  some  of  its  members.  Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  thou  shalt  be  saved.     He  that  beheveth  is  justified  from 
all  things.     With  the  heart  man  believeth  unto  righteousness. 
Faith  without  works  is  dead*   Faith  worketh  by  love — purifieth 
the  heart — overcometh  the  world.     Faith  is  the  substance  of 
things  hoped  for,  and  the  evidence  of  things  not  seen.     Be 
thou  faithful  tmto  dettth,  and  thou  shalt  receive  the  crown  of 


96  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Dociflne  of 

life.  Here,  then,  is  the  faith  of  those  who  believe  to  the 
saving  of  the  soul.  And  if,  as  the  Universalist  himself  will 
admit,  any  one  would  necessarily  err,  who  should  form  his 
opinion  of  faith  without  includiug  all  these  constituents  ;  then 
likewise  does  the  Universalist  necessarily  err,  who  decides 
upon  the  subject  of  a  future  state,  when  he  has  not  taken  into 
consideration  even  half  the  passages  that  relate  to  it.  Such 
reasoning  cannot  possibly  lead  to  truth — it  leads  inevitably  to 
error :  and  while  the  consideration  of  a  few  passages  seems 
to  prove  one  doctrine,  the  examination  of  all  the  passages 
relating  to  that  point  may  prove  a  directly  opposite  doctrine. 
The  main  argument  of  the  Universalist  therefore  is  erroneous 
and  fallacious,  and  proves  nothing  in  his  favour.  He  argues 
from  apart  instead  of  the  whole.  And  even  if  those  passages 
in  which  the  words  hell  and  everlasting  are  found,  do  not 
prove  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment  as  the  Universalist 
asserts,  other  passages  do  prove  it  incontestibly . 

2d]y.  The  main  argument  of  the  Universalist  is  fallacious, 
and  of  no  effect,  because  it  rests  upon  a.  possible  interpretation. 
When  the  Universalist  says,  that  everlasting  or  aionian  only 
means  age- lasting,  or  lasting  as  long  as  life,  he  does  not  exhibit 
the  subject  truly:  and  we  positively  deny  the  correctness  of 
the  statement.  But  it  is  true,  that  the  word  everlasting  does 
not  always  mean  endless  duration  ;  and  the  Universalist  argu- 
ment, therefore,  fairly  runs  thus  : — As  everlasting  sometimes 
signifies  only,  a  temporary  duration,  it  is  possible  it  signifies 
only  a  temporary  duration,  when  applied  to  the  punishment 
of  the  wicked.  Upon  this  we  thus  remark  : — The  original 
word  aionios,  translated  everlasting,  (aionian)  is  derived  from 
another  Greek  word  aion,  which  literally  signifies  always 
existing.  The  radical  and  primitive  meaning,  therefore,  of 
aionios,  is  precisely  what  we  render  it,  everlasting,  or  always 
existing.  Hence  arises  the  following  rule :  Aionios  ahoays 
means  endless  duration,  except  in  those  cases  where,  from 
the  nature  of  the  subject,  it  necessarily  must  have  a  limited 
signification — as  for  instance,  if  it  should  be  applied  to  human 
life,  or  to  the  Mosaic  dispensation  -,  for  then  it  must  needs 


Modern  Universnlism.  97 

be  restricted  in  its  meaning ;  exactly  as  the  corresponding 
term  everlasting  is,  when  we  say  of  a  person,  he  is  an  ever- 
lasting talker.  Now  the  word  aio7iios,  or  everlasting,  is  found 
seventy-one  times  in  the  New  Testament.  Sixty  times  it  is 
applied  to  God,  to  a  future  life,  or  the  things  of  the  heavenly 
world.  In  all  these  cases  it  necessarily  means  endless  duration. 
In  six  more  instances,  it  is  generally  believed  to  be  used  in  the 
same  sense ;  though  some  doubt  and  dispute  it :  and  in  the 
five  remaining  instances,  it  is  applied  to  the  punishment  of 
the  wicked.  Since  then,  aionios  signifies  endless  duration  ia 
almost  everyplace  where  it  is  used  ;  and  since  this  is  its  radical 
and  primitive  meaning,  is  it  not,  at  first  view,  probable  that 
this  is  likewise  its  meaning,  when  applied  to  the  punishment 
of  the  wicked  ?  Since  it  always  signifies  endless  duration, 
except  only  when  from  the  nature  of  the  subject,  it  is  impos- 
sible it  should  have  this  meaning,  and  since  there  is  nothing 
more  impossible  in  endless  punishment  than  in  endless  life, 
are  we  not,  according  to  this  rule,  obliged  to  understand  it 
in  the  endless  sense,  when  applied  to  future  punishment  ? — 
Besides,  what  reason  is  there  for  translating  it  age-lasting,  or 
enduring  as  long  as  life  ?  There  is  only  one  passage  in  the 
New  Testament"  where  it  can  possibly  have  this  meaning  ;  and 
there  this  meaning  is  doubtful^  for  it  may  equally  well  mean 
endless  duration.  And  is  it  not  then  di  perversion  of  Scripture 
to  say,  in  general  terms,  that  aionios  means  lasting  as  long  as 
life,  when  it  is  highly  doubtful  whether  it  ever  once  has  such  a 
meaning  in  the  whole  New  TestamentJ 

At  the  most  then,  it  is  barely  possible  that  the  word  aionios, 
or  everlasting,  should  mean  a  temporary  duration,  when 
applied  to  the  punishment  of  the  wicked.  As  far  as  the 
evidence  of  the  case  goes,  h  is  against  such  a  supposition. 
For  what  is  barely  possible,  is  a/ways  improbable,  until  positive, 
evidence  be  brought  to  show  that  it  is  probable.  Though 
aionios  then,  may  possibly  have  this  limited  meaning,  the 
prevailing  use  of  it  in  the  New  Testament   still   leaves  it 

'5  Philemon.  J  Edwards,  versus  Chaancev 

>■  'I 


9b'  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

probable  that  it  means  endless  duration.  And  all  tlie  passages 
where  everlasting  is  applied  to  future  punishment,  furnish 
not  the  remotest  possible  evidence  in  favour  of  Universalism  }, 
but  are  distinct  evidences  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of  endless 
future  punishment.  Through  the  whole  of  this  argument, 
therefore,  about  the  word  aionios,  or  everlasting,  the  Univer- 
salist  begs  his  way*  He  takes  for  granted  the  very  thing  he 
ought  to  prove.  And  therefore  all  his  reasoning  is  fallacious 
and  vain.  It  strikes  widb  of  the  mark,  and  does  not  advance 
his  cause  one  iota. 

Here,  however,  the  Universalist  may  perhaps  remark: 
The  wicked  suffer  in  this  world  all  the  punishment  that  is 
due  to  their  sinsi  Eternal  punishment,  it  appears  to  us,  would 
be  inconsistent  both  u'ith  the  goodness  and  justice  of  God. 
It  is  not  probable,  therefore,  that  a  gracious  God  will  inflict 
it :  and  it  is  therefore  not  probable  that  the  orthodox  inter- 
pretation of  the  word  aionios  is  correct.  Answer — We  have 
already  shown  that  the  assertion,  that  the  wicked  suffer  m  this 
zoorld  all  the  punishment  that  justice  demands,  and  their  sins 
deserve,  is  not  true,  and  cannot  possibly  be  true,^  For  this 
punishment  cannot  possibly  be  suffered  in  outward  circum- 
stances, since  the  same  lot  happens  to  the  righteous  as  to  the 
wicked.  Nay,  as  Scripture  and  experience  teach,  the  righte- 
ous often  suffer,  while  the  wicked  are  in  prosperity.  They 
must  then  be  punished  in  their  own  consciences  as  much  as 
justice  requires.  But  this  is  not  true.  For  justice  requires 
that  the  greater  the  sinner,  the  more  he  should  be  punished ; 
and  the  longer  he  continues  to  sin,  the  more  he  should  be 
punished.  But  the  direct  eontrary  of  this  is  the  fact.  It  is 
a  universally  acknowledged  fact,  founded  upon  universal 
experience,  that  remorse  of  conscience  is  always  greater  in  a 
young  sinner  than  in  an  old  one — greater  when  we  first  begin 
to  sin,  than  when  sin  has  become  habitual.  So  that  remorse 
(*f  conscience  is  iriversely^as'the  guilt  of  the  offender.     The 

*>.■•- 

k  See  pages  23, 24,  and  25. 


Modern  Universalism,  ^S 

sMore  guilty  he  becomes,  the  less  he  suffers.  It  is  therefore 
not  true  that  the  wicked  are  punished  in  this  world  in  propor- 
tion to  their  sins^ 

Nay,  this  is  not  only  false  in  fact,  but  it  is  impossible  ;  be- 
cause it  coRtradicts  the  word  of  Ood.  For  if  the  wicked 
suffer  all  the  punishment  their  sins  deserve,  then  nothing  is 
forgiven  them.  But  this  is  contrary  to  Scripture,  which  speaks 
of  forgiveness  in  almost  every  page,  and  makes  that  forgive- 
ness conditional,  //we  confess  our  sins,  God  is  faithful  and 
just  to  (forgive  us  our  sins.  Let  the  wicked  forsake  his  way 
and  return  unto  the  Lord,  and  then  he  will  have  mercy  upon 
him,  and  abundantly  pardon.^     There  is  then  such  a  thing  as 

forgiveness then  Universalism  errs  when  it  declares  that  the 

wicked  suffer  in  this  world  all  the  punishment  their  sins 
deserve  ;  for  in  that  case,  no  sins  would  remain  to  be  forgiven. 
This  forgiveness  too  is  conditional.  Then  it  cannot  be  ob- 
tained except  these  conditions  are  performed  •,  unless  God 
breaks  his  word,  and  admits  the  v/icked  to  heaven  without 
forgiveness.  If  this  is  not  possible,  then  it  is  not  possible 
that  the  above  doctrine  of  the  Universalist  should  be  true. 

Again;  the  Universahst  says,  eternal  punishment  appears 
inconsistent  both  with  the  goodness  and  justice  of  God;  and 
therefore  it  is  improbable  that  God  will  inflict  it.  This  argu- 
ment  from  natural  reason  is  the  main  pillar  of  both  the  old  and 
new  Universalism,  and  indeed  the  chief  source  as  well  as 
foundation  of  the  whole  system.  We  feel  it  our  duty,  there- 
fore, to  treat  of  it  somewhat  largely. 

Let  it  then  be  remembered  in  the  first  place,  that  all  Uni- 
versalists  admit  that  this  point  is  to  be  decided  by  revelation 
and  not  by  reason.  The  question  is  not  what  reason  teaches, 
but  what  Scripture  teaches.  We  ask  not  what  appears  pro- 
hable  from  the  light  of  nature,  but  what  is  revealed  to  be 
certain  in  the  oracles  of  truth.  Any  argument,  therefore, 
drawn  from  reason  alone,  unsupported  by  Scripture,  is  of 
very  Uttle  weight ;  and  one  single,  plain,  unequivocal,  declara- 
tion of  Scripture  to  the  contrary,  is  sufficient  to  outweigh  a 

i  Isa.  Iv.  7  ;  1  John  i.  9. 


too  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine,  of 

thousand  sach  mere  probabilities  from  the  light  of  nature.  For 
the  province  of  reason  is  perfectly  distinct  from  that  of  reve- 
lation; and  there  arejixed  rules  and  principles  of  interpreta- 
tion,  by  which  the  meaning  of  all  laws  and  compositions, 
divine  and  human,  is  to  be  ascertained.  Those  who  believe 
in  divine  revelation,  believe  that  God  has  made  known  to 
man  all  that  he  ought  to  believe  and  do  ;  and  that  his  revealed 
will  is  contained  in  the  Scripture.  To  the  Scriptures,  there- 
fore, we  must  go  to  learn  whether  the  doctrine  of  endless 
fdture  punishment  is  a  true  doctrine.  On  a  point  where 
revelation  is  silent,  reason  is  our  only  guide.  When  revela- 
tion speaks,  it  is  the  voice  of  God.  And  after  reason  has  once 
proved  the  truth  of  divine  revelation,  as  contained  in  the  Old 
and  New  Testament,  her  only  remaining  duty  is,  to  act  as  the 
interpreter  of  Scripture,  and  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  what 
God  has  revealed.  In  this  too,  she  is  not  left  at  liberty  to 
act  at  random,  and  to  decide  as  ignorance,  or  prejudice,  or 
fancy,  or  inclination,  or  passion,  may  incline  ;  but  she  is  bound 
to  be  governed  by  those  general  rules  of  grammar,  criticism, 
and  interpretation,  which  all  must  admit  to  be  necessary  in 
order  to  find  out  the  meaning  of  what  God  has  revealed. 
And  those  v.'ho  refuse  to  receive  and  acquiesce  in  the  con- 
clusions which  are  thus  drawn  from  the  Bible,  arc  guilty  of 
arraying  their  reason  against  the  declarations  and  authority 
of  God:  and  though  nominally  believers,  are  really,  and  in 
principle,  unbelievers. 

2diy.  Guided  by  the  above  principles,  we  have  already 
proved  from  reason,  from  revelation,  and  from  primitive 
testimony,  that  the  leading  doctrine  of  the  Universalist  is  not 
only  improbable,  but  impossible  to  be  true;  and  that  the 
orthodox  doctrine  of  endless  future  punishment  is  not  only 
probable,  but  absolutely  certain.  Before  these  considerations 
then,  the  foregoing  argument  of  the  Universalist  must  vanish 
as  mist  before  the  sun.  Arguing  from  reason  alone,  he  con- 
cludes the  doctrine  of  future  punishment  improbable— B.Tgmx\^ 
from  revelation,  we  prove  it  certainly  true,  and  impossible  to 
he  false.  The  interpretation,  therefore,  which  the  Universalist 
gives  to  the  term  aionios,  or  everlasting,  is  obviously  false 


Modern  Unitersalism,  101 

and  unscriptural,  and  impossible  to  be  true;  and  consequently 
all  those  passages  in  which  the  epithet  aionios,  or  everlasting, 
is  applied  to  the  punishment  of  the  wicked,  prove  that  punish- 
ment to  be  endless. 

Let  it  then  be  distinctly  remembered  by  all  those  who  are 
ever  ready  to  say,  that  it  appears  unreasonable  and  unjust  to 
punish  sinners  everlastingly — that  the  question  is  not,  what 
imy  appear  probable  to  unassisted  reason,  but  what  God  has 
in  his  holy  word  revealed  to  be  the  truth.  This  arguing  from 
reason  against  divine  revelation,  and  this  reluctance  to  admit 
the  plain  testimony  of  Scripture,  is  only  an  evidence  that 
"  the  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of 
"  God  ;''  and  that  from  the  love  of  indulgence,  and  aversion 
to  holiness,  men  often  endeavour  to  persuade  themselves  into 
error,  in  order  to  relieve  Iheir  consciences  from  the  fear  of 
"  the  wrath  to  come." 

But  the  Universalist  still  insists — reason  must  pronounce  it 
inconsistent  with  the  justice  and  goodness  of  God,  to  inflict 
eternal  punishment  upon  the  wicked  ;  first,  because  there  must 
be  very  little  difference  between  the  smallest  saint  who  is 
taken  to  heaven,  and  the  smallest  sinner  who  is  sent  to  hell : 
and  secondly,  because  endless  punishment  is  out  of  all  pro- 
portion to  the  demerit  of  sin,  since  the  one  is  finite,  and  the 
other  infinite.  Answer  1st.  This  is  an  objection  to  reason, 
not  to  faith — to  those  who  argue  from  the  light  of  nature,  not 
to  those  who  argue  from  revelation.  The  infidel  can  con- 
sistently reason  thus,  not  those  who  profess  to  believe  in  the 
word  of  God.  Thus,  saith  the  Lord,  settles  their  every  doubt 
— removes  their  every  objection.  They  ascribe  all  their 
difiiculties  and  objections  to  their  own  ignorance  and  imper- 
fection, and  upon  the  veracity  of  God,  fully  credit  his  testi- 
mony to  its  utmost  extent.  If  we  refuse  to  do  this,  we  re- 
nounce the  faith.  The  Universalist  must  therefore  either 
renounce  Christianity,  or  admit  that  his  objection  is  of  no 
weight. — 2dly.  To  the  argument,  that  endless  future  punish- 
ment is  unjust,  because  there  is  very  little  difference  between 
the  characters  of  the  smallest  saint  and  the  smallest  sinner, 
and  yet  the  one  goes  to  heaven,  and  the  other  to  hell,  we 


102  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

answer  with  Doctor  Paley.°  How  do  you  know  that  the 
difference  between  their  conditions  will  be  greater  than  the 
difference  between  their  characters.  If  there  is  little  to 
choose  between  the  characters  of  some  who  are  admitted  to, 
and  others  who  are  thrust  out  of  heaven,  there  may  6e  just  as 
little  to  choose  between  their  situations.  On  the  subject  of 
a  future  state,  God  has  said  enough  in  general  terms,  to  excite 
our  hopes,  to  alarm  our  fears,  and  to  make  us  diligent  in 
working  out  our  salvation.  He  has  not  entered  into  details 
on  this  point ;  but  assures  us,  that  he  will  "  reward  every  man 
"  according  to  his  works."  The  above  answer,  therefore, 
while  it  is  strictly  agreeable  to  Scripture,  is  also  sufficient  to 
shut  the  mouth  of  the  objector.  Under  this  view,  his  argu- 
ment loses  all  its  force. 

But,  says  the  Universalist,  endless  punishment  is  unjust, 
because  it  is  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  demerit  of  sin  ;  since 
the  one  is  finite,  and  the  other  infinite.  Answer:  This  is 
taking  for  granted,  what  ought  to  be  proved.  It  is  asserting 
at  random,  and  we  therefore  deny  the  assertion.  It  is  reason- 
ing about  what  nobody  knows  or  can  know  ;  and  our  denial 
without  proof,  is  therefore  just  as  good  as  the  Universalist's 
assertion  without  proof.  Before  we  can  assert  that  endless 
punishment  is  unjust,  and  disproportioned  to  the  nature  of 
the  offence,  we  ought  to  know  in  what  that  punishment  consists 
— we  otherwise  are  no  more  competent  to  judge,  than  a  blind 
man  is  competent  to  judge  of  colours. 

It  is  not  true  that  the  punishment  is  unjust  or  dispropor- 
tioned to  the  offence,  merely  because  it  is  endless.  This  is 
proved  by  the  following  considerations.  Man,  in  his  present 
fallen  condition,  is  in  a  state  of  punishment ;  for  if  he  was 
perfectly  innocent,  he  would  experience  perfect  unalloyed 
happiness.  The  goodness  and  perfection  of  God  would  not 
suffer  him  to  inflict  evil  upon  a  perfectly  holy  being.  All  the 
cares,  troubles,  pains,  sorrows,  diseases,  and  sufferings  that 
"  flesh  is  heir  to,"  are  therefore  the  consequences  of  our 
fallen  aod  depraved  condition  ;  and  the  human  race  is  then, 

">  Moral  Philosophy,  book  i.  chap.  7. 


Modern  Universalism.  103 

at  present,  in  a  state  of  punishment.  Suppose  man's  present 
condition  to  become  everlasting :  then  his  punishment  would 
of  course  be  everlasting.  But  will  any  one  declare  that  this 
punishment  would  be  unjust  ?  Do  not  many,  in  the  plenitude 
of  their  ignorance  and  impiety,  declare  even  that  they  wish 
no  better  heaven  than  they  here  enjoy  ?  Again ;  if  at  death 
the  wicked  were  annihilated,  and  both  their  souls  and  bodies 
for  ever  blotted  out  of  existence,  they  would  be  punished, 
and  their  punishment  would  be  everlasting ;  for  they  would 
be  for  ever  deprived  of  existence,  of  the  happiness  which 
they  enjoy  on  earth,  and  of  all  the  happiness  which  they 
might  have  enjoyed  throughout  eternity.  But  will  any  one 
say  that  this  punishment  would  be  unjust  j  or  that  it  would 
be  disproportioned  to  the  demerit  of  the  sinner  ?  Certainly 
not :  for  God  has  at  any  moment  a  right  to  take  away  from 
his  sinful  creatures  the  life  which  he  gave,  and  the  blessings 
which  they  abused.  The  Universalist,  therefore,  on  this  point, 
talks  at  random  ;  and  his  argument,  being  of  no  force,  falls  to 
the  ground.  For  all  we  know,  God  may,  without  injustice, 
in  various  ways,  punish  sinners  everlastingly.  And  those  who 
think  that  God,  in  his  infinite  wisdom,  cannot  discover  any 
other  means  of  doing  so  besides  the  two  we  have  mentioned, 
limit  the  wisdom  of  the  Allwise  by  their  own  ignorance,  and 
presume  to  judge  of  God  as  though  he  were  a  man  like  them- 
selves. 

But,  says  the  Universalist,  God  is  love ;  and  the  endless 
punishment  of  the  sinner  is  inconsistent  with  the  goodness  of 
his  gracious  nature.  So  perhaps  judges  human  reason ;  but 
God's  word  decides  differently.  Which  of  the  two  are  we  to 
believe,  reason  or  revelation  ?  Nay,  we  have  just  proved 
that  there  are  various  kinds  of  endless  future  punishment, 
which,  reason  alone  being  judge,  are  not  inconsistent  with  the 
justice  of  God.  And  if  not  inconsistent  with  his  justice,  they 
are  not  inconsistent  with  his  goodness  ;  for  God's  perfections 
cannot  possibly  clash  with  each  other— each  one  acts  in  har- 
mony with  all  the  rest ;  and  as  it  is  impossible  for  God  to  be 
merciful  without  being  just,  so  it  is  equally  impossible  for  him 
to  be  just  at  the  expense  of  his  mercy.     When  human  laws 


!04  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

and  magistrates  inflict  a  just  punishment  upon  the  guilty, 
reason  never  pronounces  it  unmerciful,  or  inconsistent  with 
goodness.  Indeed  there  is  much  ignorance,  error,  and  so- 
phistry prevailing  on  this  subject.  The  goodness  of  God, 
or  the  justice  of  God,  is  never  to  be  regarded  as  an  insulated 
attribute,  but  as  inseparably  connected  with  all  his  other  per- 
fections. Whether  we  speak  of  that  punishment  which  a  good 
parent  inflicts  upon  his  children,  a  good  master  upon  his  ser- 
vants, good  laws  and  magistrates  upon  the  public  offender,  or 
a  gracious  God  upon  the  wicked,  the  case  is  the  same.  That 
is  a  just  punishment  which  is  proportioned  to  the  nature  of 
the  crime,  to  the  danger  there  is  of  its  being  committed,  to 
the  evil  it  tends  to  produce,  to  the  necessity  there  is  of  pre- 
venting it,  and  to  the  good  consequences  that  would  flow  from 
performing  the  opposite  duty.  That  is  a  justly  proporiioned 
punishment,  which  exhibits  a  just  and  adequate  idea  of  the 
moral  evil  and  ruinous  tendency  of  the  offence,  and  a  proper 
as  well  as  sufiicient  motive  to  restrain  all  intelhgent  and  ac- 
countable beings  from  the  commission  of  it.  That  is  a  rea- 
sonable, necessary,  and  just  ptmishment,  which  secures  the 
efficacy  of  law  and  government,  which  prevents  the  general 
commission  of  crime,  and  promotes  the  general  peace,  safety, 
good  order,  and  happiness.  And  that  punishment  which  has 
all  these  qualifications,  is  dictated  by  goodness  as  well  as  jus- 
tice; because  it  is  precisely  that  kind  of  punishment  which  is 
best  calculated  to  prevent  misery^  and  promote  individual  and 
general  happiness.  The  very  wisdom  and  mercy  of  God,  then, 
ascertain  that  measure  of  punishment  which  it  is  necessary 
for  his  justice  to  inflict.  And  as  in  his  word  he  teaches  us 
that  this  punishment  is  eternal,  it  is  manifest  that  endless  fu- 
ture punishment  is  consistent  with,  and  required  hy  the  mercy 
as  well  as  the  justice  of  God.  Indeed  we  have  already  proved," 
that  no  punishment  short  of  eternal  would  be  sufficient  to  se- 
cure the  great  ends  of  government.  These  great  ends  are,  to 
prevent  disobedience,  sin,  and  misery,  which  are  inseparable; 
and  to  secure  obedience,  holiness,  and  happiness,  which  al- 

0  See  page  28,  note. 


Modern  UniversaUsm*  lOo 

^ays  go  together.  But  with  moral  agents  and  accountable 
beings,  no  punishment  short  of  eternal  would  be  sufficient  to 
prevent  the  one  and  secure  the  other :  and  therefore  the 
mercy  and  justice  of  God  combine  in  inflicting  endless  future 
punishment  upon  the  wicked  who  die  impenitent.  Let  the 
impenitent  and  disobedient  reader  therefore  take  warning, 
and  without  delay  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come. 

We  have  thus  then  proved,  both  from  reason  and  Scripture, 
that  the  endless  punishment  of  the  wicked  is  not  inconsistent 
either  with  the  goodness  or  justice  of  God.     Nay,  we  have 
shown  that  endless  future  punishment  is  necessarr/,  and  that 
nothing  short  of  it  would  be  siifflcient  to  promote  the  great 
moral  purposes  of  Jehovah's  government — nothing  short  of  it 
would  be  sufiicient  to  prevent  sin  and  misery,  and  to  secure 
holiness  and  happiness  throughout  the  universe.    Even  this  is 
barely  sufficient,  since,  though  endless  punishment  was  threat- 
ened, yet  the  angels  kept  not  their  first  estate — our  first  pa- 
rents disobeyed  God — and  the  great  mass  of  our  fellow-crea- 
tures live  in  open  rebellion  against  heaven.     But  if  endless 
punishment  is  consistent  with  God's  perfection,  and  necessary 
for  the  welfare  of  God's  creatures,  then  it  is  probable,  from 
this  consideration  alone,  that  the  word  aionios  means  endless 
when  in  Scripture  it  is  applied  to  the  punishment  of  the  wick- 
ed ;  and  therefore  that  fundamental  argument  and  objection 
of  the  Universalist  now  under  consideration,  is  proved  to  be 
perfectly  destitute  of  all  force.     Consequently  our  orio-inal 
conclusion  stands  good.     The  Avord  aionios,  translated  ever- 
lasting, always  means  endless  duration,  except  only  when 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  such  a  meaning  is  impossible  or 
improbable  :  but,  considering  the  foregoing  arguments,  there 
is  nothing  impossible  or  even  improbable  in  the  endless  future 
punishment  of  the  wicked ;  and  the  word  aionios,  therefore 

when  applied  to  that  punishment,  must  mean  endless every 

other  meaning  is  improbable. 

Here  it  should  be  observed,  that  the  above  reasoning  is 
equally  conclusive  against  the  old  Universalism.  The  old 
Universalisls  teach,  that  the  wicked  will  be  punished  here- 
after in  proportion  to  their  wickedness,  and  all  that  their  siw 

M 


106  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

in  justice  deserve  ;  but  that  hell  is  a  place  of  trial  and  cor= 
rection  for  the  amendment  and  sanctification  of  the  sinner— 
that  the  damned  in  hell  will,  in  process  of  time,  all  be  brought 
to  repentance — and  that,  after  that,  they  will  all  be  admitted 
to  a  state  of  endless  happiness.  This  opinion,  however,  is 
grounded  upon  the  same  argument  we  have  just  been  consi- 
dering, viz.  that  endless  punishment  is  inconsistent  with  the 
justice  and  goodness  of  God.  But  this  argument  we  have 
shown  to  be  nugatory  and  unfounded.  The  system  of  the  oM 
Universalist,  therefore,  is  left  without  a  foundation  ;  and  be- 
ing unsupported,  falls  to  ruin  by  its  own  weight.  But  while 
we  are  upon  this  point,  we  may  further  add,  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  old  Universalist  cannot  possibly  be  true,  because  if  the 
wicked  suffer  all  the  punishment  which  justice  requires  and 
their  sins  deservfe,  then  it  would  be  unjust  in  God  to  punish 
them  longer — then  their  deliverance  from  hell  would  be  an 
act  of  justice  and  not  of  mercy — and  then  they  would  be 
saved  without  forgiveness  ;  for  they  would  have  no  sins  to  be 
forgiven,  since  they  suffered  all  the  punishment  which  justice 
demanded  and  their  sins  deserved ;  and  they  would  therefore 
regain  their  title  to  that  eternal  life  and  happiness  which  at 
first  was  promised  to  their  obedience.  But  this  cannot  pos- 
sibly be  so,  because  it  is  directly  contrary  to  Scripture.  The 
Scriptures  represent  salvation  as  impossible  without  forgive- 
ness; and  they  declare  our  deliverance  from  death  and  hell, 
and  our  admission  to  heaven,  to  be  the  result  of  rich  grace 
and  unspeakable  mercy.  Further;  the  old  Universalist  doc- 
trine is  contrary  to  Scripture,  because  the  Scriptures  speak 
of  this  life  as  our  final  and  only  state  of  trial ;  nor  do  they 
ever  represent  future  punishment  as  temporary,  or  as  a  means 
of  reformation,  or  as  a  merciful  and  fatherly  discipline  and 
correction;  but,  on  the  contrary,  they  speak  of  future  pu- 
nishment  as  the  result  of  divine  justice  and  displeasure;  and 
they  use  every  variety  of  expression  that  can  possibly  convey 
the  idea  of  its  endless  duration.  The  idea,  therefore,  of  the 
wicked  being  sent  to  hell  upon  trial,  and  of  the  damned  being 
brought  to  repentance  in  hell,  and  of  all  the  inhabitants  of 
hell  being  finally  gathered  into  heaven,  are  mere  fancies  of 


Modem  Universalism,  107 

human  origin,  and  without  foundation  in  the  word  of  God. 
Neither  the  old  nor  the  new  Universahsm  can  stand  the  tesi 
of  holy  writ. 

Before  we  conclude  upon  this  head,  we  must  anticipate  and 
answer  an  obvious  and  important  question.  May  not  annihi- 
lation be  the  future  punishment  of  the  wicked ;  and  do  you 
not  think  that  the  whole  of  their  future  punishment  will  con- 
sist in  having  their  souls  and  bodies  blotted  for  ever  out  of 
existence  ?  By  no  means.  Annihilation  cannot  possibly  be  the 
only  future  punishment  of  the  wicked,  because  reason  and 
revelation  both  teach  that  there  will  be  different  degrees  of 
future  punishment,  according  to  the  different  degrees  of  wick- 
edness of  which  men  are  guilty.  Our  Saviour  says.  It  shall 
be  more  tolerable  for  Tyre  and  Sidon  in  the  day  of  judgment, 
than  for  those  who  reject  and  disobey  the  Gospel ;  and  he 
declares,  that  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  who  sinned  with  their 
eyes  open,  should  receive  the  greater  damnation.'^  But  there 
cannot  possibly  be  different  degrees  of  future  punishment,  if 
the  wicked  are  all  annihilated  at  death.  This  doctrine  there- 
fore is  both  unreasonable  and  unscriptural. 

2.  Annihilation  cannot  be  the  punishment  of  the  wicked 
hereafter,  because  the  Scripture  declarations  clearly  convey 
a  different  idea,  and  teach  a  different  doctrine.  St.  John  in 
the  Revelations,  as  before  quoted,  declares,  that  in  the  day 
of  judgment  the  wicked  shall  be  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire  and 
brimstone,  where  they  shall  be  tunnentcd  for  ever  and  ever. 
Now  this  fire  here  spoken  of,  whether  it  be  understood  lite- 
rally or  figuratively,  must  at  least  mean  positive  punishment 
and  real  suffering  :  and  the  word  tormented  proves  incontest- 
ibly  that  this  is  its  meaning.  But  if  they  really  and  positively 
suffer,  they  must  necessarily  be  in  a  state  of  actual  existence; 
and  the  doctrine  of  annihilation,  therefore,  cannot  possibly  he 
true.  Again ;  in  another  passage  already  quoted,  it  states, 
that  after  the  wicked  have  been  thrust  out  of  the  kingdom  of 

»  Matt,  sxiii-  14;  x.  15. 


108  Remarks  on  the.  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

heaven,  they  shall  see  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  all  the 
prophets,  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  This,  then,  must  necessa- 
rily take  place  after  death  :  and  as  they  could  not  possibly 
see  these  things  unless  they  were  in  a  stale  of  actual  and  con- 
scious existence,  it  necessarily  follows  that  the  doctrine  of 
annihilation  at  death  is  unscriptural,  and  impossible  to  be 
true. 

3.  The  only  direct  argument  adduced  from  Scripture  by 
the  Destructionists,  to  piove  that  the  wicked  will  be  annihi- 
lated hereafter,  is  founded  upon  the  words  death,  corruption, 
destruction,  perish.  They  maintain  that  these  words  natu- 
rally mean  a  state  of  nonexistence ;  and  that  the  wicked, 
therefore,  will  hereafter  be  blotted  out  of  being,  and  cease  to 
have  any  existence,  either  in  body  or  soul.  But  the  meaning 
of  these  words  must  manifestly  be  determined  according  to 
the  sense  in  which  they  were  used  and  understood  by  those 
who  delivered  them,  and  those  to  whom  they  were  addressed. 
But  we  have  already  proved  that  the  Scripture  writers,  when 
they  speak  of  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  hereafter,  repre- 
sent the  wicked  in  a  state  of  actual  existence  and  conscious- 
ness. When  therefore  they  assert  that  the  wicked  shall  die, 
reap  corruption,  be  destroyed,  and  perish  for  ever,  they  must 
necessarily  mean,  among  other  things,  that  their  everlasting 
happiness  will  be  destroyed — and  that,  as  conscious  beings^ 
they  will  undergo  everlasting  punishment.  And  that  this  is 
the  very  sense  in  which  these  words  were  understood  by  the 
Jews  and  first  Christians,  is  a  matter  of  fact,  the  proof  of 
which  is  found  in  the  authorities  we  have  already  quoted — 
the  writings  of  the  Jews  and  primitive  Christians.  This  ar- 
gument, therefore,  which  is  the  main  support  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Destructionists,  turns  out,  upon  examination,  to  be 
destitute  of  foundation,  and  contrary  to  the  word  of  God. 
The  advocates  for  annihilation  take  for  granted  the  very  thing 
they  ought  to  prove  ;  and  their  doctrine,  therefore,  must  by 
all  be  rejected  and  condemned. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  May  not  the  moral  purposes  of  Jeho- 
vah's government  be  answeredj  and  his  perfections  carried 


Modern  Universalism,  lOi) 

0Ut  into  their  full  display  and  operation,  by  blotting  the  wick- 
ed finally  out  of  existence,  after  they  have  been  punished  a 
longer  or  shorter  time,  according  to  the  measure  of  their  sins  ? 
Answer  :  How  reason  may  determine  this  question,  we  under- 
take not  to  say  ;  but  revelation,  taken  as  a  whole,  does  not 
lisp  a  syllable  to  justify  this  opinion.  The  wicked,  therefore, 
who  look  forward  to  final  extinction,  do  it  wilhout  any  war- 
rant from  the  word  of  God.  Those  who  continue  impenitent 
through  this  hope,  trust  their  souls  for  eternity  upon  a  mere 
peradventure  ;  and  run  the  risk  of  everlasting  suffering,  upon 
the  mere  possibility  that  positive  future  punishment  may  have 
an  end.  From  such  extravagance  in  folly  and  sin,  good  Lord 
deliver  us ! — But, 

2dly.  We  do  not  admit  that  the  Scriptures,  taken  as  a  whole, 
and  rightly  understood,  are  silent  upon  this  point.  We  have 
already  quoted  the  language  of  St.  John,  where  he  says  that 
devils  and  wicked  persons  shall,  in  the  day  of  judgment,  be 
cast  into  the  lake  of  fire  and  brimstone,  where  they  shall  be 
tormented  day  and  night  for  ever  and  ever.  The  smoke  of 
their  torment  ascendeth  up  for  ever  and  ever;  and  they  have 
no  rest  day  nor  night.P  This  language  proves,  as  already 
stated,  that  the  wicked  will,  after  the  day  of  judgment,  be  in 
a  state  of  conscious  existence  ;  because  otherwise  it  could 
not  be  said  of  them  with  truth  that  they  were  tormented,  and 
had  no  rest :  and  this  language  proves  too,  that  they  will  re- 
main in  this  state /or  ever  and  ever.  Now,  what  does  for  ever 
and  ever  mean  ?  For  ages  of  ages — or  a  very  long  indefinite 
period  of  time,  that  will  come  to  an  end,  says  the  old  Univer- 
salist — until  death,  says  the  new  Universalist,  What  do  the 
Scriptures  teach  ?  The  expression  for  ever  and  ever  is  the 
most  powerful  expression  that  could  be  used,  to  convey  the 
idea  of  the  endless  ages  of  eternity.  This  idea  is  expressed  in 
every  possible  variety  of  way  in  Scripture  ;  but  no  expression 
can  be  more  full  and  forcible  than  the  above  reduplication. 
The  original  of  for  ever  and  ever  literally  signifies,  to  the 

p  Rev.  XX.  10}  and  xiv.  11. 


110  Remarks  on  ihe  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

eternities  of  eternity,  to  the  endless  ages  of  those  endless  pe- 
riods of  existence  that  follow  after  the  day  of  judgment.  The 
simple  expression  ybr  ever  is  used  sixty-one  times  in  the  New 
Testament :  in  ffty-Jive  of  these  instances  it  indisputably 
means  endless  duration :  in  the  six  remaining  instances  it  is 
applied  to  future  punishment.i  Since  in  every  other  in- 
stance it  means  endless  duration,  on  what  grounds  can  we 
possibly  have  a  good  and  sufficient  reason  to  understand  it  in 
a  different  sense  when  applied  to  future  punishment  ?  The 
reduplicate  expression  for  ever  and  ever,  is  found  tzoenty-cne 
times  in  the  original/  Nineteen  times  it  necessarily  means 
endless  duration,  being  applied  to  the  life  of  God,  the  glory 
that  is  to  be  ascribed  to  God,  the  kingdom  of  Christ  after  the 
day  of  judgment,  and  the  future  life  of  the  righteous.  Three 
times  it  is  applied  to  the  future  punishment  of  the  wicked  : 
but  as  this  redupHcate  phrase  is  never,  at  other  times,  used 
to  signify  a  limited  duration,  it  is  violently  improbable  that  it 
should  mean  a  limited  duration  when  applied  to  future  pu- 
nishment. There  is  therefore  every  reason  to  believe  that 
these  passages  declare  and  teach  the  endless  future  punish- 
ment of  the  wicked.  But  the  wicked  are,  in  some  of  those 
passages,  represented  as  in  a  state  of  conscious  existence 
throughout  the  whole  of  that  period  :  consequently  we  must 
infer  that  the  wicked  will  never  be  annihilated,  but  punished 
positively  for  ever  and  ever.  Lastly,  that  this  is  the  true 
Scripture  doctrine,  is  proved  from  this  fad:  the  primitive 

q  Matt  vi.  13;  xxi.  19;  Mark  xi.  14;  Luke  i.  33,  55;  John  iv.  14;  vl. 
51,  58;  viii.  35  twice,  51,  52;  x.  28;  xi.  26;  xii.  34;  xiii.  8;  xiv.  16 r 
Rom.  i.  25;  ix.  5;  xi.  36;  xvi.  27;  1  Cor.  viii.  13;  2  Cor.  ix.  9;  xi.  31; 
Gal.  i.  5 ;  Phil.  iv.  20 ;  1  Tim.  i.  17 ;  2  Tim.  iv.  18 ;  Heb.  i.  8 ;  v.  6 ;  vi.  20 ; 
vii.  17,  21,  24,  28;  xiii.  8,  21;  1  Pet.  i.  23,  25;  iv.  11 ;  v.  11 ;  2  Pet.  iii.  18; 
1  John  ii.  17;  2  John  2  ;  Rev.  i.  6, 18;  iv.  9,  10;  v.  13,  14;  vii.  12;  x.  6; 
xi.  15;  XV.  7;  xxii.  5.  The  six  instances  in  which  it  is  applied  to  future 
punishment  are,  Mark  iii.  29 ;  2  Pet.  ii.  17;  Jude  13 ;  Rev.  xiv.  11 ;  xix.  3; 
XX.  10. 

r  Gal.  i.  5 ;  Phil.  iv.  20 ;  1  Tim.  i.  17 ;  2  Tim.  iv.  18 ;  Heb.  xiii.  21 ;  1  Pet. 
iv.  11;  v.  11;  Rev.  i.  6,  18;  iv.  9,  10;  v.  13,  14}  vii-  12;  X.  6;  xi.  15; 
ziv.  11 ;  XV.  7 ;  six.  3 ;  xs.  10 ;  xxii.  5. 


Modern  Universalism.  Ill 

Christians  universally  held  this  doctrine,  and  thus  interpreted 
these  words  and  passages.  The  opinion,  therefore,  that  the 
wicked  will  be  annihilated,  either  at  death  or  afterwards,  is 
unscriptural,  and  cannot  be  true. 3 

But  is  it  not  a  gross  reflection  upon  the  perfections  of  God, 
tor  maintain  that  the  greatest  part  of  mankind  will  finally  be 
damned?  We  hold  no  such  opinion.  One  half  of  the  human 
race  die  in  infancy  and  childhood,  before  they  are  capable  of 
sin ;  and  having  been  made  alive  again  through  the  mediation 
of  Christ,  they  will  all  be  saved.  A  considerable  portion  of 
the  remaining  half  will  likewise  obtain  eternal  happiness  from 
God's  mercy  in  Christ,  through  that  living  faith  which  leads 
them,  according  to  the  measure  of  light  they  have  received, 
to  fear  God,  to  come  to  him,  to  seek  him  diligently,  and  to 
work  righteousness.  And  during  the  millennium,  which  is  to 
last  at  least  1000,  and,  as  we  beHeve,  360,000  years,  and 
during  which  all  are  to  know  God  from  the  least  to  the  great- 
est, pure  religion  will  abound  as  much  as  sin  now  abounds. 
At  the  end  of  this  world,  therefore,  the  men  and  devils  that 
are  lost  will  form  but  a  very  small  company,  in  comparison  of 
all  that  shall  be  saved ;  and  the  endless  punishment  of  this 
comparatively  small  number,  as  it  will  have  been  brought 
upon  them  by  their  own  wilful,  deliberate,  habitual  sinfulness, 
so  will  the  wisdom,  goodness,  and  justice  of  God  Hkewise  see 
necessary  to  inflict  it,  for  the  general  good  of  all  his  intelli- 
gent and  accountable  creatures  throughout  the  universe  :  just 
in  the  same  way  as  a  good  magistrate  cuts  off  public  offenders 
for  ever  from  this  life,  in  order  both  to  punish  them  according 
to  their  crimes,  and  also  to  promote  the  public  welfare. 

It  appears  then,  from  the  foregoing  remarks,  that  the  main 
arguments  of  the  Universalist  are  of  no  force,  because  they 
are  founded  upon  an  interpretation  that  is  barely  possible — 
that  is  not  proved  to  be  probable — and  that  cannot  be  proved 
probable.  Their  arguments,  therefore,  together  with  the  sys- 
tem that  is  built  upon  them,  necessarily  fall  to  the  ground ; 

•  See  Edwards,  versus  Chauncey ;  Dwight's  Theology,  Sermon  10  and 
167;  Tillotson's  Sermons,  35, 140,  165;  and  Nathan  Strong's  Benevolence 
and  Misery,  as  quoted  in  H.  Adams'  View  of  Religion. 


1-12  Remarks  on  the  distingiiiskinfr.  Doctrine  of 

they  have  not  even  a  single  probability  to  support  them  ;  their 
only  foundation  is  error  and  sophistry ;  and  we  are  therefore 
compelled  to  reject  and  condemn  them,  as  unscriptural  and 
false. 

Sdly.  The  main  argument  of  the  Universalist  is  sophistical 
and  vain,  and  does  not  support  his  doctrine,  because  it  is  built 
upon  doubtful  passages — or  such  as  have  equivocal  words  in 
them,  and  admit  of  two  different  interpretations.  This  u 
eminently  the  case  with  their  master-argument  about  hell. 
They  assert,  that  in  no  one  passage  of  Scripture  does  hell 
mean  either  a  place  of  future  punishment  or  a  slate  of  future 
punishment;  and  therefore,  as  though  there  was  nothing  else 
in  Scripture  upon  the  subject,  they  hastily  conclude  that  the 
doctrine  of  future  punishment  has  no  foundation  in  the  word 
of  God.  We  have  already  proved  that  this  conclusion  is  not 
true,  and  that  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment  is  abun- 
dantly established  by  other  passages  of  Scripture.  But  our 
concern  at  present  is  with  their  argument  about  the  word 
hell.  What  reasons  do  they  give  for  asserting  that  those  pas- 
sages in  which  the  word  hell  is  found,  furnish  no  foundation 
or  sufficient  cause  for  believing  either  in  a  place  or  state  of 
future  punishment  ?  Their  argument  is  this  : — Sheol,  of  the 
Old  and  AoJes,  of  the  New  Testament,  both  translated  Ac//, 
mean  only  the  invisible  world,  or  place  of  departed  spirits  j 
and  they  cannot  therefore  be  brought  to  prove  a  place  or 
state  of  future  punishment.  Gehenna  too,  another  word  trans- 
lated  hell,  means  only  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  a  place  of  pu- 
nishment and  corruption  in  tfiis  world ;  and  it  cannot  there- 
fore be  broujiht  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  punishment  in  the 
next  world.  Answer  :  Our  object  at  present  is  not  to  exa- 
mine the  Scripture  meaning  of  these  words,  but  merely  ta 
show  that  the  reasoning  of  the  Universalist  is  fallacious,  and 
proves  nothing  in  his  favour.  Let  it  be  remembered  too,  that 
the  above  argument  is  negative,  and  not  positive.  Even  if 
sound  and  unanswerable^  it  does  not  disprove  the  doctrine  of 
future  punishment :  it  does  not  furnish  the  slightest  probabi- 
lity against  it :  it  only  proves  that  those  passages  in  whicli 
the  word  hell  is  found,  do  not  support  or  render  that  doctrine 


Modern  Universulism.  113 

probable  :  it  only  proves  that  those  passages  have  nothing  to 
do  with  future  punishment ;  and  that  when  the  orthodox  quote 
them  in  support  of  this  doctrine,  they  quote  what  is  irrelevant. 
We  deny,  however,  that  the  above  argument  of  the  Univer- 
salist  is  sound:  we  assert  that  his  reasoning  is  fallacious,  and  of 
no  force.  We  admit  that  the  original  words,  translated  Ae//,  do 
not  always  mean  a  place  of  future  punishment ;  but  we  assert 
that,  in  many  passages,  they  do  have  this  meaning.     And  the 
false  reasoning  of  which  we  complain  consists  in  this  : — Be- 
cause, \n  some  passages,  the  original  words  do  not  mean  a 
place  or  state  of  future  punishment,  therefore,  says  the  Uni- 
versalist,  they  never  have  this  meaning  in  any  passages :  and 
hence  he  is  led  to  do  violence  to  large  portions  of  Scripture, 
in  order  to  force  them  into  some  meaning  consistent  with  his 
own  doctrine.     This  we  shall  prove  presently.     We  here  re- 
mark, that  this  is  unfair^  unjustifiable,  and  false  reasoning,  he- 
cause  it  takes  for  granted  the  very  thing  that  is  to  be  proved* 
The  Universalist  will  admit,  that  if  the  doctrine  of  future  pu- 
nishment be  true,  some  of  those  passages  in  which  the  word 
hell  is  found,  ought  to  be,  and  must  necessarily  be  understood, 
as  directly  or  indirectly  teaching  that  doctrine.     These  pas- 
sages then,  in  his  view,  admit  of  two  different  senses.    Then, 
at  best,  they  must  be  regarded,  on  both  sides,  as  doubtful 
passages  :  and  then,  according  to  a  grand  rule  of  criticism 
and  interpretation,  neither  party  should  rely  upon  them  as 
proof;  but  they  should  be  set  aside  as  neutrals,  until  one  sidd 
or  the  other  is,  from  reason  and  Scripture  united,  proved  to 
be  true,  or  proved  to  have  the  highest  probability  in  its  fa- 
vour.    Now  we  have  already,  not  from  doubtful  passages  of 
Scripture,  but  from  such  a?  admit  but  one  meaning,  brought 
overwhelming  evidence  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  future  pun= 
ishment :   and  having  proved  this  doctrine,  we  are  author- 
ized, and  even  obliged,  to  consider  many  of  those  passages 
which  speak  of  hell,  as  teachmg  this  same  doctrine. 

The  Universalist  reasoning  to  the  contrary,  therefore,  is 
false  reasoning,  and  such  as  leads  to  dangerous  consequences. 
By  this  mode  of  reasoning  any  thing  mau  be  proved — by  tlf  i^ 

15 


114  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

mode  of  reasoning  we  can  never  arrive  at  truth,  but  must  iU" 
evitably  fall  from  error  to  error.  This  kind  of  reasoning  is 
the  main  support  of  all  error  and  heresy.  It  forms  its  conelu- 
sions  after  considering  only  a  part  of  Scripture,  instead  of 
waiting  till  it  has  impartially,  prayerfully,  and  in  the  fear  of 
God,  examined  the  whole.  It  inquires  what  nature  and  un- 
assisted reason  teach,  instead  of  inquiring  what  revelation 
teaches.  It  appeals  to  fancy  instead  of  fact.  It  violates  the 
ordinary  rules  of  grammar,  criticism,  and  interpretation.  It 
argues  and  decides  as  though  reason  instead  of  revelation 
were  paramount.  It  inquires  not  what  is,  upon  the  whole, 
taking  every  thing  into  the  account,  the  most  probable — 
which  is  the  only  equitable  and  possible  mode  of  coming  to 
just  and  safe  conclusions.  But  it  inquires — Is  not  such  an 
interpretation  possible  ?  Is  not  such  a  word,  phrase,  or  pas- 
sage, independently  considered,  capable  of  such  a  meaning? 
and  thus  builds  its  adventurous  conclusions  upon  peradven- 
tures  and  possibilities. 

Now  this  is  precisely  the  way  in  which  the  infidel  reasons 
against  revelation.  If  this  mode  of  reasoning  is  right,  then 
the  infidel  is  right,  and  Christians  are  in  error.  But  if  Chris- 
tians are  right,  and  infidels  wrong,  then  Univerealists,  and  all 
others  who  reason  according  to  any  or  all  of  the  above  prin- 
ciples, must  necessarily  be  in  the  wrong. 

To  this  fallacious  mode  of  reasoning  all  the  monstrous  sys- 
tems of  heresy  that  ever  afflicted  the  Christian  Church  have 
owed  their  origin :  and  by  this  mode  any  thing  almost  may 
be  proved.  Were  it  worth  while,  we  could,  by  arguing  upon 
this  plan,  bring  as  many  arguments  as  the  Universalist  has 
done  in  support  of  his  doctrine,  to  prove  that  everlasting  life 
and  happiness  promised  in  Scripture,  mean  only  age-lasting 
life  and  happin'ss  in  this  world :  and  that  the  heaven,  which 
Christians  have  in  all  ages  been  expecting,  is  nothing  more 
than  the  happiness  which  religion  yields  its  possessor  in  this 
life  !  For  does  not  Scripture  say,  the  fowls  of  heaven—the 
rain  of  heaven — Mount  Sinai  burned  to  the  midst  of  heaven  ? 
Does  not  God  say  to  the  Israelites,  Ask  from  one  side  of  hea- 


^1 

SM\  Modern  Universalism.  Hi? 

*^  I  wen  to  the  other,  i.  e.  ask  all  the  nations,  from  the  rising  to 
«^^;the  setting  sun  ?  And  does  no<|A brahanpjhvhen  God  appeared 
to  hinn,  and  gave  him  gracious  and  comforting  assurances  in  a 
dream,  say  of  the  place,  This  is  the  gate  of  heaven  ?  Does 
not  all  this  then,  according  to  the  Universalist  way  of  reason- 
ing, prove  that  heaven  is  here  on  earth,  and  enjoyed  in  this 
world  ?  Does  not  our  Saviour  prove  this,  v^hen  he  says,  The 
kingdom  of  God  is  within  you  ? — for  the  kingdom  of  God  and 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  are  the  same.  Is  not  this  also  clearly 
asserted  in  the  Old  Testament,  when  it  says.  The  righteous 
^hall  be  recompensed  in  the  earth?  And  does  not  our  Saviour 
leach  the  same  doctrine,  when  he  declares  that  God,  by  com- 
ing in  judgment  upon  Jerusalem,  would  reward  every  man 
according  to  his  works  ? — Which  he  literally  did,  says  the 
Universalist,  by  suJSering  the  Christians  to  escape  from  Jeru- 
salem to  Pella  ;  and  by  afterwards  overwhelming  the  wicked 
Jews  with  destTUCtion.  And  does  not  all  this  then  prove, 
upon  Universalist  principles,  that  the  reward,  the  heaven, 
and  the  happiness  ©f  the  righteous,  are  enjoyed  in  this 
world? 

In  the  same  way  it  may  be  proved,  by  the  same  mode  of 
.  reasoning,  that  everlasting  life  and  happiness  are  enjoyed  on 
earth — that  we  have  no  heaven,  no  life  and  happiness  to  ex- 
pect hereafter — that  there  is  not  07ie  single  promise  of  future 
life  and  happiness  in  the  whole  Bible — but  that,  at  death,  the 
very  righteous  as  well  as  the  wicked  perish,  and  are  annihi- 
lated, like  the  brutes.  For  the  words  life  and  heaven  are 
quite  as  indefinite  in  their  meaning,  and  used  in  as  great  a  va' 
riety  of  senses,  as  the  words  hell  and  everlasting.  Isaiah  says, 
that  those  who  go  down  into  the  grave,  cannot  hope  for  God's 
truth,  nor  praise  him  j  and  Solomon  declares,  that  we  must, 
with  all  our  might,  do  all  we  have  to  do  now,  because  there 
is  wo  work  nor  knowledge  in  Sheol,  the  invisible  world  to  which 
we  are  going.  Our  Saviour  says.  He  that  heareth  my  word 
hath  everlasting  life — is  passed  from  death  unto  life.  For  this 
is  eternal  life ;  to  know  thee,  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus 
Christ  whom  thou  haat  sent.    In  fine,  everlasting  life,  and 


f 


■S1,€  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of  jl^* 

happiness,  and  rewards,  are  promis,ed  to  the  righteous ;  btit,.  ^ 
according  io  the  Lfeiversalist*  everlasting  signifies  only  age-^^ 
lasting,  or  enduring  as  long  as  life  ;  and  therefore,  upon  his 
own  principles,  it  is  proven  that  the  only  heaven  promised  in 
Scripture,  and  the  only  everlasting  life  and  happiness  which 
the  righteous  have  to  expect,  are  in  this  world,  and  before 
they  die.  For  all  the,  other  passages  that  seem  to  contradict 
this  notion,  may,  by  some  of  the  various  artifices  of  sophistry,, 
and  by  the  help  of  a  fruitful  imagination,  be  forced  to  speak 
a  language  consistent  with  the  above  notions. 

The  reasoning  of  the  Universalist,  then,  on  the  subject  of 
hell,  and  in  favour  of  his  system,  is  false  reasoning— leads  to 
dangerous  consequences- — can  only  result  in  error — and  never 
jvill  nor  can  possibly  lead  the  inquirer  into  truth.  We  have 
thus  then,  by  three  distinct  arguments,  proved,  in  three  differ- 
ent ways,  that  the  reasoning  of  Universalists  is  false.*  We 
are  compelled,  therefore,  renewedly  to  infer,  that  their  doc- 
trine and  their  system  of  religion  are  false.  We  hasten  npw 
to  estabhsh  our  second  position. 

2dly.  The  Universalist  interpretation  of  Scripture  passages 
cannot  possibly  be  the  true,  but  must  necessarily  be.  a  false  in- 
ierpretatioriy  because  it  is  contrary  to  the  sense  in  which  the 
inspired  writers  and  teachers  understood,  and  intended  them 
to  be  understood.  This  is  proved  by  these  two  considera- 
tions. 1st.  The  inspired  writers  and  teachers  understood, 
and  intended  their  language  to  be  understood,,  in  consistency 
with  other  parts  of  divine  revelation.  2d.  The  inspired  writers 
and  teachers  understood,  and  intended  their  language  to  be 
understood,  precisely  in  the  same  sense  in  which  that  language 
was  commonly  used  and  understood.  When  we  have  proved 
these  two  points,  we  shall  have  rooted  up  the  Universalist 
system  from  its  very  foundation. 

1st.  The  inspired  writers  and  teachers  understood,  and 
intended  their  language  to  be  understood,  inconsistency  with 

<  For  abundant  specimens  of  their  reasoning,  the  reader  is  referred  to 
the  Universalist  Magazine,  Kneeland's  Gazetteer,  the  various  other  workf 
of  {fnceland,  Ballou,  Balfour,  and  Murray,  M'Calla's  Dispute,  &c.  &c. 


Modern  Universalism.  117    \f0l 

other  parte  of  divine  revelation.  This  is  so  manifest  as  to  \lL 
need  no  arguments  to  prove  it,  to  the  satisfaction]  of  all  thoseV  ^ 
who  believe  in  divine  revelation.  All  inspired  writers  and  \^ 
teachers  were  under  the  influence  of  the  same  Holy  Spirit.  •^ 
That  Holy  Spirit  is  infallible  and  perfect.  All  his  communi- 
cations, therefore,  must  be  consistent  and  harmonious  through* 
out.  He  cannot  possibly  contradict,. at  one*  time,  what  he 
has  revealed  at  another-  And,  therefore,  though  additional 
truths  may  be  eommunicated — though  a  positive  and  ceremonial 
duty  enjoined  at  one  time  may  be  abrogated  at  another — ^yet 
a  moral  doctrine  or  duty,  plainly  taught  in  some  parts  of  the 
Scriptures,  can  never  be  contradicted  in  other  parts.  Positive 
and  arbitrary  institutions  rest  only  upon  divine  authority,  but 
moral  truths  and  duties  arise  from  the  nature  of  God,  and  the 
nature  of  things.  The  former  are,  temporary  and  mutable; 
the  latter  are,  eternal  and  unchangeable.  The  former  depend 
upon  the  will  of  the  lawgiver,  the  latter  are  as  necessary  as 
the  nature  and  perfections  of  the  lawgiver  himself.  The 
justice,  mercy,  and  truth  of  God,  are /or  ever  the  same  ;  and 
jf,  in  some  parts  of  his  holy  word,  he  has  fully  revealed  the 
doctrine  of  endless  future  punishment,  other  parts  cannot  con- 
tradict  this  doctrine  ;  for  then  the  Scriptures  would  contradict 
themselves,  and  this  is  impossible.  Now  we  have  already 
proved  the  doctrine  o{  endless  future  punishment,  from  various 
passages  of  the  word  of  God.  When,  therefore,  the  inspired 
writers  called  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  everlasting,  and 
assured  them  that  that  punishment  would  be  suffered  in  hell, 
they  must  necessarily  have  spoken  in  consistency  with  the  rest  of 
Scripture — they  must  necessarily,  at  least,  in  some  instances, 
by  the  words  everlasting  punishment,  have  meant  endless 
punishment ;  and  by  the  word  hell,  the  place  and  state  of 
endless  future  punishment.  Otherwise  it  would  follow,  that 
the  Scriptures  contradict  themselves.  But  as  this  is  im- 
possible, it  is  likewise  impossible  that  the  Universalist  in- 
terpretation  of  the  words  hell  and  everlasting,  should  be  the 
right  interpretation — their  interpretation  must  necessarily  be 
false;, 


< 


118  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

2dly.  The  inspired  writers  and  teachers  understood,  and 
[interpretedltheir  language  to  be  understood,  precisely  in  the 
same  sense  in  wkich  that  language  was  commonly  used  and 
understood.  We  have  already  proved  that  this  was  absolutely 
necessary,"^  because  if  they  used  their  words  in  a  sense  dif- 
ferent from  that  in  which  tl.sy  were  commonly  used ;  and 
that  too,  without  explaining  clearly,  the  sense  in  which  they 
did  use  them,  they  were  guilty  of  betraying  their  trust — they 
were  guilty  of  deceiving  their  hearers — they  were  guilty  of 
teaching  falsehood^  instead  of  teaching  the  truth,  for  their 
hearers  must  have  understood  them  in  the  common  sense — a 
sense  different  from  the  true  one,  and  consequently  must  have 
remained  in  error.  But  this  is  impossible  to  be  true  :  and  it 
is  equally  impossible  that  the  inspired  writers  and  teachers 
should  have  been  ignorant  of  the  meaning  commonly  attached 
to  the  original  words  translated  hell  and  everlasting.  It 
necessarily  follows,  therefore,  that  the  Scripture  writers  and 
teachers  used  the  words  in  the  common  popular  sense — that 
sense  which  was  ordinarily  attached  to  them  among  those  to 
whom  they  preached,  and  for  whom  they  wrote.  In  what 
sense  then  were  the  words  aionios,  Sheolj  Hades^  and  Gehenna^ 
used  at  the  time  they  were  written,  and  by  the  people  to  whom 
they  were  delivered? 

It  is  a  fact  which  no  scholar  will  dispute,  that  the  Greek 
word  aionios  literally  meaning  and  translated  everlasting  was 
always  used  by  those  who  wrote  and  spoke  the  Greek  lan- 
guage, in  the  very  sense  which  we  have  attached  to  it. 
There  were  indeed  some  familiar  exceptions,  such  as  we  have 
already  noticed  in  our  remarks  upon  that  word.  But  as  its 
natural  and  necessary  meaning  is  everlasting,  it  was  always 
understood  to  have  that  meaning,  except,  when  from  the 
nature  of  the  case,  such  a  meaning  would  have  been  absurd 
or  impossible.  And  as  it  was  uniformly  used  in  this  sense  by 
all  who  used  the  Greek  language,  throughout  the  immense 
Roman  empire,  there  is  every  reason  to  believe,  that  the 

'*  See  pages  47, 48,  and  49. 


Modern  Universalism,  119 

Jews  themselves,  and  all  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament, 
who  were  Jews,  and  members  of  the  Roman  empire,  used 
the  word  in  this  same  sense.     Accordingly  we  have  already 
proved,  that,  excepting  the  passages  now  in  dispute,  it  is 
used  in  the  New  Testament  precisely  in  the  same  sense  in 
which  it  was  uniformly  used  by  Greeks  and  Romans.     The 
common  and  uniform  meaning  of  the  word,  therefore,  both 
among  Jews  and  Greeks,  was  everlasting.     Then  the  writers 
and  teachers  of  the  New  Testament  must  have  used  it  in  this 
same  sense,  when  they  applied  it  to  the  punishment  of  the 
wicked ;  and  consequently  the  punishment  threatened  against 
the  wicked  in  Scripture,  necessarily  means  endless  punishment. 
The  Universalist  argument,  therefore,  about  aionios,  which 
he  renders  aionian,  is  necessarily  false — our  translators  have 
correctly  rendered  this   word  everlasting— and  those  pas- 
sages where  aionios,  or  the  still  stronger  phrase  of  for  ever 
and  ever,  is  applied  to  the  punishment  of  the  wicked,  un- 
equivocally  and  fully  prove  the  doctrine  of  endless  future 
punishment. 

The  reader  is,  we  trust,  now  prepared  to  listen  to  the 
word  of  God  on  this  subject ;  and  we  pray  that  its  awful 
declarations  may  have  a  due  and  saving  influence  upon  his 
heart.  The  first  passage  we  quote  is  from  the  twenty-fifth 
chapter  of  St.  Matthew.  Our  blessed  Saviour  had  been  fore- 
telling, that,  as  governor  and  judge  of  the  world,  he  would 
soon  come  in  judgment  upon  Jerusalem,  and  destroy  that 
wicked  city.  But  that  punishment,  with  which,  as  a  righteous 
Judge,  he  visited  the  Jewish  nation,  was  a  type,  a  forerunner 
and  a  pledge,  of  that  everlasting  punishment,  with  which,  in 
the  great  day  of  judgment,  the  wicked  will  be  overwhelmed. 
As  surely  as  the  budding  of  trees,  and  the  putting  forth  of  the 
leaves  in  spring,  is  an  indication  and  forerunner  of  summer, 
so  surely  the  judgment  upon  Jerusalem,  was  an  indication 
and  forerunner  of  the  final  judgment."  And,  therefore,  by  a 
T>ery  natural  transition,  and  a  transition  very  common  in  the 

*  ?ee  Horslev'g  Sermons 


fSO  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

prophecies  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  our  Saviour,  from- 
speaking  of  his  judgment  upon  Jerusalem,  was  led  to  speak  of 
the  last  great  judgment^  at  the  end  of  the  world.  He  then 
Uses  the  following  language:  When  the  Son  of  man  shall 
come  in  his  glory,  and  all  the  holy  angels  with  him,  then  shall 
he  sit  upon  the  throne  of  his  glory  :  and  before  him  shall  be 
gathered  all  nations ;  and  he  shall  separate  them  one  from 
another,  as  a  shepherd  divideth  his  sheep  from  the  goats :  and 
he  shall  set  the  sheep  on  his  right  hand,  but  the  goats  on  the 
left.  Then  shall  the  King  say  unto  them  on  bis  right  hand, 
Come  ye  blessed  of  my  Father,  inherit  the  kingdom  prepared 
for  you  from  the  foundation  of  the  world.  Then  shall  he  say 
also  unto  them  on  the  left  hand.  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed, 
into  everlasting  fire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and  bis  angels. 
And  these  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment :  but  the 
righteous  into  life  eternal.  Again  :  the  Apostle  Paul,y  writing 
to  the  Thessalonians,  in  order  to  comfort  them,  and  alarm 
their  cruel  persecutors,  declares  ;  It  is  a  righteous  thing  with 
God  to  recompense  tribulation  to  them  that  trouble  you  ;  and 
to  you  who  are  troubled,  rest  with  us,  when  the  Lord  Jesus 
shall  be  revealed  from  heaven  with  his  mighty  angels,  m 
flaming  fire,  taking  vengeance  on  them  that  know  not  God, 
and  that  obey  not  the  Gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  who 
shall  be  punished  with  everlasting  destruction  from  the  pre- 
sence of  the  Lord,  and  from  the  glory  of  his  power:  when  he 
shall  come  to  be  glorified  in  his  saints,  and  to  be  admired  in 
all  them  that  believe.  Again  :  St.  John  in  the  Revelations 
declares,*  that  the  wicked,  in  the  day  of  judgment,  shall  be 
cast  into  the  lake  of  fire  and  brimstone,  and  shall  be  tormented 
there  day  and  night /or  erer  and  ever. 

But  in  what  sense  were  the  words  Sheol,  Hades,  and  Ge- 
henna used,  at  the  time  they  were  written,  and  by  the  people 
to  whom  they  were  addressed  ?  HadeSy  the  term  used  in  the 
New  Testament,  literally  signifies  the  invisible  zoor/d— -which  is. 

y  2  Tbess.  i.  •  Rev.  sx.  xxi. 


Modern  Unii>ersaUsm»  121 

ft  most  general  designation  of  the  j9/ace  of  departed  spirits. 
This  word  has  been  in  use  ever  since  the  time  of  Hesiod  and 
Homer,  who  hvcd  900  years  before  Christ,  and  were  cotem- 
poraries  with  the  prophet  Isaiah.  From  Hesiod,  Homer, 
Virgil,  and  other  writers,  it  abundantly  appears  that  Hades 
was,  by  Greeks  and  Romans,  considered  as  divided  into  tzoo 
parts^  E\ys\um  and  Tartarus:  and  as  after  death,  men  were 
judged  according  to  their  works;  while  the  good  were  made 
happy  in  one  part  of  Hades,  the  bad  were  condemned  to 
suffer  punishment  in  another.  As  too  not  only  the  Greeks 
and  Romans,  but  also  the  Chaldeans,  Egyptians,  Hindoos, 
Persians,  and  other  ancient  nations,  believed  in  a  future  state 
of  reward  and  punishment,  so  they  all  had  some  word,  of 
words,  corresponding  with  the  three  words  just  mentioned. 
Now,  Sheol  of  the  Old  Testament,  smswevs precisely  to  Hades 
of  the  New,  as  is  proved  by  this  fact.  The  Septuagint,  which 
is  a  translation  of  the  Old  Testament  into  the  Greek  language, 
was  made  by  the  Jews  themselves,  and  for  the  benefit  of  those 
Jews  who  had  lost  the  knowledge  of  the  Old  Testament  lan- 
guage, and  spoke  nothing  but  Greek.  These  translators 
were  well  acquainted  both  with  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek. 
Their  translation  was  Aiithful  and  accurate.  It  was,  therefore 
universally  used  throughout  the  Greek  and  Roman  empires  " 
and  even  the  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament,  made  by 
our  Saviour  and  the  New  Testament  writers,  are  almost  all 
taken  from  the  Septuagint*  But  in  the  Septuagint,  the  He- 
brew word  Sheol  is  almost  invariably  translated  by  the  Greek 
word  Hades,  Hades  and  Sheol  then,  must  mean  one  and  the 
same  ihin^.  But  we  have  already  proved^  that  Hades  was 
used  to  signify  the  invisible  world,  including  both  Elysium^ 
the  place  where  the  righteous  were  rewarded,  and  Tartarus^  the 
place  where  the  wir.ked  were  punished.  The  Sheol  of  the  Old 
Testament  must,  therefore,  have  this  same  meaning.  And  as 
we  have  shown,  that  the  Scripture  writers  and  teachers  must 
have  used  these  words  in  the  same  sense  in  which  tht^y  were 
generally  understood,  it  necessarily  follows,  that  Sheol  and 
Hades  mean  that  invisible  world  or  world  of  spirits,  one  part  of 
which  is  the  receptacle  of  the  righteous,  who  are  in  a  stale  of 


122  Remarks  on  the  distingmshing  Doclrine  of 

happiness,  and  the  other  part  the  abode  of  the  wicked,  toho  are 
in  a  state  ofpnnishmenl.^ 

Now,  both  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  go  to  Sbeol  or 
Hades  ;  but  they  go  to  two  different  mansions,  according  to  their 
different  characters.  When  Scripture,  therefore,  declares,  ia 
general  terms,  merely  that  a  person  has  gone  to  Sheol  or 
Hades,  it  teaches  only  this  general  truths  that  they  have  gone 
to  the  world  of  spirits :  as  when  the  patriarch  says,  My  gray 
hairs  shalt  thou  bring  down  with  sorrow  to  the  grave  (Sheol)* 
When  the  righteous  are  spoken  of  as  going  to  Sheol  or  Hades, 
it  necessarily  means  that  they  enter  into  the  regions  of  the 
blessed :  as  when  the  psalmist  says,''  Thou  wilt  not  leave  my 
joul  in  hell  (Sheol  and  Hades),  neither  wilt  thou  suffer  thine 
Holy  One  to  see  corruption.  And  when  the  wicked  are  re- 
presented as  going  to  Sheol  or  Hades,  it  must  necessarily 
7nean  that  they  go  to  that  part  of  the  invisible  world  where 
the  wicked  are  in  a  state  of  punishment :  as  when  it  is  said 
by  the  psalmist,c  The  wicked  shall  be  turned  into  bell  (Sheol), 
and  all  the  people  that  forget  God — and  as  when  it  is  said  ©f 
Dives,  In  hell  (Hades)  he  lifted  up  his  eyes,  being  in  torment,'^ 

These  considerations  serve  at  once  to  explain  the  meaning 
of  Sheol  and  Hades,  to  explain  those  passages  of  Scripture  in 
which  these  words  are  found,  and  to  prove  that  both  Sheol 
and  Hades  included  the  idea  of  a  future  state  of  rezoards  and 
punishments — though,  when  a  particular  passage  is  under  ex- 
amination, the  question,  which  of  the  two  is  meant  f  must  be 
decided  according  to  the  character  of  the  persons  spoken  of. 
Both  these  words  are  indeed  translated  hell — which  word  is 
now  the  appropriate  and  exclusive  designation  of  a  future 
place  and  state  of  punishment.  But  formerly,  the  vrord  hell, 
according  to  its  Saxon  origin,  had  precisely  the  same  mean- 
itug  with  the  word  Hades.     The  English  translators  of  the 

a  See  Calmet;  Broughton ;  and  Rees'  Cyclopedia,  art.  Hell:  also  in 
Rees*,  art.  Magi,  Egypt,  and  Brachmans ;  Stanley'is  Philusophers,  Jwt. 
Chaldaick  Oracles :  also  King  on  the  Creed,  art.  Hell ;  and  Macknight  on 
2  Pet.  ii— iv. 

b  Psa.  xvi.  10,  ciuoted  Acts  ii.  27.  c  Psa.  ix.  l? 

^  Sec  King  on  the  Creedj  art  Hell. 


Modern  Universalism,  12S 

Scriptures  did  therefore  very  properly  use  this  word  in  trans- 
lating Hades  and  Sheol.  In  the  sanne  sense  the  reformers 
used  it  in  the  Creed ;  where  they  say  of  Christ,  He  descended 
into  hell ;  i.  e.  his  soul  went  into  the  place  of  departed  spii'its. 
And  the  honest  inquirer  has  only  to  recollect,  that  as  the  im- 
portant words  death,  life,  faith,  repentance,  redeemed,  saved, 
heaven,  &c.  are  used  in  several  different  senses  in  the  holy 
Scriptures,  so  is  it  likewise  with  the  English  word  hell.  Some- 
times in  Scripture  it  signifies  only  the  world  of  spirits,  including 
both  the  ncjansions  of  the  good  and  the  bad — sometimes  it  sig- 
nifies the  happy  abodes  of  the  righteous— sometimes  the  mi- 
serable regions  of  the  damned,  either  before  or  after  the  day 
of  judgment.  When,  therefore,  we  come  across  any  such 
words,  we  are  not  arbitrarilij  to  fix  a  meaning  upon  them,  but 
to  determine,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  which  of  their  various 
meanings  is,  in  that  passage,  most  probable  and  appropriate. 
The  observance  of  this  simple  rule  might  have  saved  the 
Church  from  the  scourge  of  Universalism. 

Sheol  and  Hades  have  thus  then  been  proved  to  furnish  not 
a  shadow  of  support  to  Universalism.  But  how  is  it  with  the 
word  Gehenna  ?  In  what  sense  was  that  used  at  the  time 
the  New  Testament  was  written  ?  This  word  is  not  found  in 
the  Old  Testament.  It  is  a  word  peculiar  to  the  Jews,  and 
was  invented  some  time  after  the  Babylonish  captivity,  and 
before  the  coming  of  our  Saviour.  This  is  proved  by  (he 
fact  of  its  familiar  vse  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  by  the 
fact  -of  its  being  found  in  the  apocryphal  books  and  Jewish 
Targums,  some  of  which  were  written  before  the  time  of  our 
Saviour.  These  Targums  were  translations  and  interpreta' 
iions  of  the  Scriptures^  Three  of  these  Targums,  in  remark- 
ing upon  various  passages  of  the  Old  Testament,  use  the  word 
Gehenna,  and  expressly  explain  it  to  mean,  the  place  of  future 
punishment  for  the  wicked.  But  we  have  already  proved  that 
otir  Saviour,  and  the  writers  and  teachers  of  the  ^cw  Testa- 
ment, used  these  words  in  the  same  sense  in  which  they  were 
commonly  used.  It  therefore  necessarily  follows,  that  Gehen- 
na means  hell,  in  the  very  sense  we  now  commonly  use  it  \ 
liz^  the  .place  and  state  of  future  punishment  for  the  wicked 


124  Remarks  on  the.  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

Consequent!}'  all  those  passages  of  the  New  Testament  where 
this  word  is  used  in  reference  to  persons,  are  so  many  distinct 
proofs  of  the  reality  of  a  future  hell ;  and  likewise  so  many 
distinct  proofs  of  the  falsehood  of  Universalism.® 

Hear  then  some  of  the  Scripture  passages  to  this  effect ; 
and  let  them  rest  with  a  solemn  weight  upon  your  heart.  Our 
Saviour,  foreteUing  the  persecution  and  death  his  faithful  fol- 
lowers would  meet  with,  uses  the  following  words  :^ — Fear 
not  them  which  kill  the  body,  but  are  not  able  to  kill  the  soul : 
but  rather  fear  him  who  is  able  to  destroy  both  soul  and  body 
in  hell  (Gehenna).  For  he  that  fmdeth  his  life  shall  lose  it ; 
and  he  that  loseth  his  life,  for  my  sake,  shall  find  it.  In  other 
words,  he  who  refuses  to  become  a  Christian,  in  order  to 
escape  persecution  and  death,  and  in  order  to  enjoy  the  pre- 
sent life — he  shall  retain  his  present  life  of  the  body,  but 
lose  the  eternal  life  of  his  soul  :  but  he  who  professes  my  re- 
ligion, and  loses  his  present  bodily  life  for  it,  shall  neverthe- 
less secure  the  eternal  life  of  his  soul.  Again  our  blessed 
Saviour  teaches,  If  thy  right  hand,  foot,  or  eye  offend  thee, 
cut  it  off,  pluck  it  out ;  that  is,  if  any  thing,  however  dear  to 
you,  becomes  the  cause  of  your  sinning,  deny  yourself  and 
part  with  it.  For,  says  the  Saviour,  it  is  better  for  thee  to 
enter  into  life  maimed,  than  to  be  cast  into  hell  fire  (the  fire 
of  Gehenna),  where  their  worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire  is  not 
quenched. 

Here  it  may  be  asked,  How  do  you  answer  the  objection 
of  the  Universalist,  who  maintains  that  the  punishment  of 
Gehenna  is  only  an  allusion  to  earthly  punishment,  and  there- 
fore is  not  to  be  regarded  as  teaching  the  future  punishment 
of  the  wicked  ?  We  have  already  answered  this  objection, 
by  proving  that  this  language,  among  the  Jews  of  our  Savi- 
our's time,  was  universally  used  and  understood  of  the.  future 
punishment  of  the  damned^  that  the  Saviour  himself  musf  have 
used  it  in  this  same  sense;  and  that  Gehenna  in  Scripture 
must  therefore  have  precisely  the  same  meaning  with  our 

^  See  Par-ihurst,  art.  Gehenna*  f  Matt.  v.  and  x. ;  and  Mark  iSf* 


Modern  Universalism,  125 

word  hell.  But  in  order  to  throw  further  light  on  this  subject, 
we  make  the  following  remarks  : — 

1.  We  have  already  proved,  that  the  doctrine  of  a  future 
state  of  rewards  and  punishments  was  made  known  and  be- 
lieved in  from  the  very  beginning  of  the  world.  But  as  the 
light  of  revelation  was  progressive,  shining  more  and  more 
until  the  perfect  day  of  the  Gospel,  so  was  it  upon  the  subject 
of  a  future  state  :  and  as  the  Messiah  was  promised  from  the 
very  beginning,  and  still  new  communications  with  respect  to 
him  were  afterwards  made  from  time  to  time,  so,  though  the 
everlasting  punishment  of  death  was  revealed  from  the  begin- 
ning, still  the  knowledge  and  assurance  of  God's  people,  upon 
that  point,  were  not  brought  to  their  present  perfection,  until 
St.  John  in  the  Revelations  declared,  that  in  the  day  of  judg- 
ment, death  and  Hades  would  be  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire  and 
brimstone.  Even  as  it  now  stands  in  Scripture,  the  subject  is 
involved  in  awful  obscurity.  The  doctrine  of  etidless  future 
punishment  stands  Jully  and  broadly  revealed ;  but  we  know 
comparatively  nothing  about  the  nature,  manner,  and  circum- 
stances of  it :  nay,  even  of  the  degrees  of.it,  we  only  know, 
from  the  representations  given,  that  the  punishment  of  the 
wicked  is,  in  some  respects,  awfd  and  appalling^  and  that  it 
will  be  "  according  to  their  works,^^  Hence  the  Old  Testa- 
ment writers,  in  several  places,  speak  of  it  as  a  state  of  dark- 
ness, silence,  and  oblivion — a  state  naturally  suggesting  some- 
thing  dreadful,  and  about  which,  as  Dr.  Campbell  observes, 
the  mo^t  prying  eye  and  listening  ear  can  acquire  no  infor- 
mation. 

2.  As  the  threatening  of  death  announced  the  endless  future 
state  and  condition  of  the  wicked,  so  the  term  Sheol  or  Hades 
was  invented,  to  express,  in  the  most  general  and  unlimited 
manner  possible,  the  place  in  which  departed  spirits  had  their 
abode.  These  words,  in  themselves-,  convey  no  idea  whatever 
of  their  condition;  for  all  departed  spirits  have  gone  to  the 
invisible  world,  and  their  condition  there  can  only  be  learned 
from  their  characters. 

3.  As,  however,  there  was,  from  the  earliest  times,  a  word 
,  fheaven)  which,  among  other  meanings,  conveyed  the  specif  c 


126  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

idea  of  the  place  and  state  of  endless  future  happiness  for  the 
righteous,  and  as  the  doctrine  of  endless  future  punishment 
was  known  from  the  beginning,  it  zoas  to  be  expected  that^  in 
process  of  time,  some  zoord  would  be  invented  for  the  sole  pur- 
pose of  expressing  specifically  the  future  place  and  stale  of  the 
damned.  This  word  was  accordingly  adopted  long  before  the 
time  of  our  Saviour — our  Saviour  and  the  inspired  teachers 
of  the  Gospel  made  use  of  this  word,  in  order  to  convey  the 
idea  of  a  future  state  and  place  of  punishment,  and  thus  sanc- 
tioned the  use  of  the  word  by  divine  authority — and  this  word 
is  Gehenna,  which  is  likewise  in  Scripture  translated  hell ;  and 
which  literally  signifies  hell  iti  the  very  sense  we  now  use  that 
term^i  viz.  the  state  and  place  where  the  wicked  are  punished 
for  ever  after  death. 

4.  As  the  place  of  the  wicked  hereafter  is  set  before  us  in 
vague  and  general  terms,  so  likewise  are  their  condition  and 
punishment.  All  that  is  said  indeed  of  either  heaven  or  hell 
is  in  general  terms,  by  way  of  accommodation  to  our  ignorance 
and  imperfection,  and  by  way  of  allusion  to  things  with  which 
we  are  acquainted — and  subjects  the  most  painful  and  abhor- 
rent, judgments  the  most  dreadful  and  severe,  are  laid  under 
contribution  for  this  purpose.  Thus  this  future  condition  and 
punishment  are  called  corruption,  destruction,  and  the  second 
death,  in  reference  to  what  takes  place  at  our  natural  death. 
They  are  set  forth  under  allusion  to  the  destruction  of  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah,  which,  being  destroyed  by  fire  and  brimstone, 
were  turned  into  a  lake  ;  as  in  the  following  passages.  Upon 
the  wicked  God  shall  rain  snares,  fire,  and  brimstone,  and  a 
horrible  tempest.  Christ  shall  descend  from  heaven,  to  take 
vengeance,  with  flaming  fire,  on  them  that  know  not  God,  and 
obey  not  the  Gospel.  The  wicked  shall  be  cast  into  the  lake 
which  burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone.*»  And  lastly,  they  are 
exhibited  under  allusions  to  the  valley  of  Hinnom.  That 
valley  ]ay  near  Jerusalem,  and  had  been  the  place  of  those 
abominable  sacrifices  in  which  the  idolatrous  Jews  burned 

e  See  Campbell's  Dissertations  on  the  Gospels. 
^  Psa.  xl.;  2  Thess.  i.;  Rev.  xx.and  xH. 


Modern  Universalism*  12? 

«» 

their  children  alive  to  Moloch.  A  particular  place  iiv  this 
valley  was  called  Tophet,  from  Toph,  the  fire-stove  in  which 
their  children  were  burned  King  Josiah  abolished  these  cruel 
abominations,  about  600  years  before  the  time  of  our  Saviour, 
After  that  it  became  and  continued  a  place  of  filth  and  cor- 
ruption, the  common  receptacle  for  dead  carcasses  and  every 
thing  loathsome.  Hence  the  worms  were  continually  preying 
upon  these  carcasses,  and  a  perpetual  fire  was  kept  up,  to  con- 
sume all  the  filth  and  rubbish  ;  and  it  is  probable  too,  as  many 
suppose,  that  criminals  were  publicly  executed  here.  In  con- 
sequence of  this,  the  valley  of  Hinnom  became  an  object  of 
loathing  and  terror^  and  was  looked  upon  by  all  as  a  jit  emblem 
of  hell ^  and  hence  Gehenna,  which  signifies  the  valley  of 
Hinnom,  began  to  be  commonly  used  as  a  distinctive  name^  to 
express  the  future  place  and  punishment  of  the  wicked:  and 
therefore  our  blessed  Saviour  sanctionedMiisMse  of  the  word, 
and  gave  divine  authority  to  this  its  then  signification.  Of  this 
the  passages  lately  quoted  from  Matthew  and  Mark,  on  this 
very  subject,  are  sufficient  examples. 

5.  As  the  Old  Testament  Church,  from  the  beginning,  be- 
lieved in  endless  future  punishment — as  that  punishment  was 
to  take  place  in  Hades,  and  in  that  part  of  Hades  which  was 
afterwards  called  Gehenna — and  as  they  had  no  other  words 
to  express  the  place  of  future  punishment  either  before  or 
after  the  day  of  judgment — it  necessarily  follows  that  they 
believed  the  wicked  would  be  punished  in  Hades,  both  before 
and  after  the  day  of  judgment,  and  for  ever.  For,  one  ob- 
scure passage  of  the  New  Testament  excepted,  there  is  not  a 
syllable  in  the  whole  Bible  which  would  justify  the  belief,  or 
even  the  suspicion,  that  the  place  of  punishment  for  the  wick- 
ed, after  the  day  of  judgment,  would  be  different  from  what  it 
was  before.  Even  of  Dives,  in  Hades,  before  the  day  of  judg- 
ment, our  Saviour  speaks  as  though  he  were  punished  in  both 
body  and  soul,  precisely  in  the  same  way  as  he  speaks  of  the 
punishment  of  Gehenna.  But  though  Gehenna  includes  the 
place  and  state  of  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  before  the 
day  of  judgment,  our  Saviour  probably  designs  mainly  to  ap- 
ply it  to  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  after  that  time,  as  Dr, 


128  Remarks  on  the  distinguiskins  Doctrine  of 

Campbell  has  laboured  to  prove.  This  i-iew  is  supported  bj 
fad.  Josephus  informs  us,  that  the  Jews  believed  the  wicked 
would  be  ]mn\shed  f 07'  ever  m  Hades.  The  heathens  believed 
that  the  wicked,  afler  they  had  been  brought  to  judgment  and 
condemned^  would  be  punished  in  Hades.  And,  as  far  as  we 
have  examined  the  subject,  the  primitive  Christians  represent 
the  righteous  as  delivered  out  of  Hades  at  the  day  of  judg- 
ment, and  then  taken  to  heaven  ;  but  the  wicked,  after  the 
resurrection,  as  remaining  upon  the  earth  to  be  punished. 

6.  In  fine,  according  to  Scripture,  between  death  and  the 
day  of  judgment  the  righteous  are  rewarded,  and  the  wicked 
punished,  only  in  their  souls,  in  the  two  different  mansions  of 
Hades—since  their  bodies,  during  that  time,  are  mouldering  in 
the  grave.  During  this  period,  therefore,  the  reward  of  the 
one  and  the  punishment  of  the  other  are  incomplete  and  par- 
tial. But  after  the  resurrection  and  the  day  of  judgment,  the 
souls  and  Isodies  of  the  righteous  having  been  reunited,  they 
will  in  that  state  be  taken  up  to  heaven.  Both  soul  and  body 
will  there  contribute  to  their  happiness,  and  then  their  reward 
will  be  complete  and  perfect ;  while  the  punishment  of  the 
wicked  likewise  will  then  become  complete,  because  they  will 
thenceforward  be  punished  in  their  bodies  as  well  as  theiff 
souls. 

7.  The  preceding  remarks  enable  us  to  answer  some  com- 
mon objections,  upon  which  Universalisls  lay  much  stress.  How, 
it  is  asked,  could  they  believe  in  hell,  when  they  had  no  word 
to  express  it  f  Locke,  in  his  treatise  on  the  understanding, 
will  satisfy  the  inquirer;  though  this  objection  would  need  no 
answer,  were  it  not  on  account  of  the  ignoranly  who  may  be 
led  astray  by  it.  But  to  persons  of  any  information,  the  fol- 
lowing fact  must  be  sufficient.  It  often  happens  that  men,  for 
ages  together,  express  an  idea  or  a  fact  by  vague  terms,  or  by 
a  circumlocution.  Does  it  follow  that  this  idea  or  fact  is  not 
true,  because  there  is  no  specific  word  to  express  it  ?  Do  truth 
and  fact  depend  upon  words  ;  and  could  there  be  no  hell,  or 
no  belief  in  endless  future  punishment,  until  the  word  hell  was 
invented  ?  They  believed  in  endless  future  punishment,  and 
the  punishment  of  a  spirit  necessarily  implies  that  he  is  in 


Modern  Unhiersalism*  129 

some  place^  for  a  spirit  is  a  real  and  a  limited  being,  and  these 
two  ideas  comprise  all  that  is  essential  to  the  meaning  of  hell. 
No  matter  where  it  is,  its  localitif  as  a  place,  is  necessarily 
implied  in  its  existence  as  a  state  of  punishment*  All  that  is 
implied  in  the  word  hell,  therefore,  can  just  as  well  be  taught 
in  other  words  or  phrases. 

But  how  then  is  that  passage  in  the  Revelations  to  be  un- 
derstood, which  says,  death  and  hell  (Hades)  were  cast  into 
the  lake  which  burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone  ?     Can  hell 
be  cast  into  hell  ?     Besides  which,  Dr.  Campbell  says,  the 
real  hell  will  not  exist  till  the  day  of  judgment.     Answer : 
Hell  signifies  that  place  and  state  of  punishment  in  which  the 
wicked  are  after  death.     Part  of  this  hell  is  before  the,  day  of 
judgment,  and  part  afterwards.  •  Before  the  day  of  judgment, 
the  wicked  suffer  only  in  their  souls.    In  the  day  of  judgment, 
soul  and  body  will  be  reunited,  and  after  that  they  will  suffer 
in  both.     When  therefore  the  Apostle  says,  death  and  hell 
were  cast  into  the  lake  which  burneth  with  fire  and  brim- 
stone, he  speaks  figuratively.     By  death,  he  means  the  man- 
sions of  the  bodies  of  the  dead,  or  the  surface  of  the  earth 
where  all  dead  bodies  lie  buried  ;  and  by  hell  (Hades)  he 
means  the  region  of  spirits,  the  atmosphere  surrounding  the 
earth,  which  is  to  us,  in  distinction  from  the  earth  itself,  tht 
invisible  world, — This  view  is  supported  by  the  context.  After 
he  has  stated  that,  in  order  to  judgment,  the  sea  gave  up  the 
dead,  or  dead  bodies  which  were  in  it,  he  says,  death  and  hell 
{Hades')  gave  up  the  dead  -which  were  in  them.    What  else  can 
death  and  hell  here  mean,  than  the  bodies  and  souls  of  those 
who  had  died — one  of  which  were  reposing  in  the  mansions 
of  the  dead,  the  grave,  and  the  other  were  reserved  in  Hades, 
the  great  repository  of  souls  ?     But  if  death  and  hell  here 
mean  the  earth  and  the  atmospherical  regions  that  surround 
it,  then  the  declaration  that  death  and  hell  were  cast  into  the 
lake  which  burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone,  means  only  that 
the  earth  and  the  regions  of  air  around  it,  will,  in  the  day  of 
judgment,  become  the  lake  which  burneth  with  fire  and  brim- 
stone; and  will  be  converted  into  hell,  the  place  where  the 
wicked,  the  devil;  and  his  angels,  are  to  be  punished  for  ever 

17 


f  30  Remarks  07i  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

and  ever.'  The  only  change,  therefore,  that  takes  place  wit-fe 
respect  to  the  wicked  in  the  day  of  judgment  is,  that  theJr 
souls  and  bodies  will  be  reunited,  and  having  before  been 
punished  only  as  disembodied  spirits  in  the  real  heli  of  Hades, 
they  will  then  be  punished  in  their  resurrection  bodies,  and  in 
that  real  hell  which  is  emphatically  called  Gehenna.  The 
place  of  punishment  will  in  both  cases  be  the  same,  viz.  the 
earth  and  the  air  5  but  the  degree  and  nature  of  the  punish- 
ment will  differ — as,  before  the  day  of  judgment,  in  Hades 
they  are  punished  only  in  their  souls,  and  after  the  day  of 
judgment,  in  Gehenna,  which  includes  Hades,  they  are  pun- 
ished both  in  their  bodies  and  their  souls» 

As,  however,  this  view  of  Revelatioiis  xx.  14  is  rather  new, 
and  opposed  by  great  authorities,  it  becomes  necessary  that 
.  we  should  state  more  fully  the  arguments  on  which  our  inter- 
pretation is  grounded  ;  and  while  we  do  this,  we  shall  at  the 
same  time  more  fully  twfold  the  nature  and  degree  of  future 
punishment.  Dr.  Campbell,  in  one  of  his  dissertations,  asserts 
that  the  hell  we  believe  in  is  not  yet  prepared — that  the  Old 
Testament  contains  nothing  which  teaches  it— that  Gehenna, 
a  New  Testament  word,  is  the  only  word  that  designates  the 
place  of  endless  future  punishment — that  hell,  as  suchj  will 
have  no  existence  until  the  day  of  judgment — and  that  Hades 
is  then  to  be  destroyed.  Upon  these  views  of  Dr.  Camp- 
bell Universalists  lay  great  stress ;  and  many  of  his  remarks 
they  frequently  quote,  with  great  approbation.  We  do  not 
think  it  necessary  to  go  minutely  into  this  subject;  though  we 
cannot  help  thinking,  that  Dr.  Campbell  has  sometimes  ex- 
pressed himself  unguardedly  and  equivocally,  if  no-t  errone- 
ously. What  we  have  already  said,  however,  will,  we  trust, 
put  the  whole  into  a  clear  light.  Only  one  point,  we  appre- 
hend, needs  consideration,  and  that  is  Dr.  Campbell's  inter- 
pretation of  Rev.  XX.  14  ;  for  that  contains  the  original  ground 
of  difference  between  us,  since  we  beheve  that  the  place  and 
state  of  endless  future  punishment  were  known  from  the  be- 

»  See  Macknight  on  1  Cor.  xv.  and  1  Thess.  iv. ;  Poole's  Synopsis  C£ 
liev.  XX.  14. 


Modern  Universalism,  13i 

ginning  of  the  world,  and  were  successively  taught  under  the 
words  death,  Sheol,  Hades,  Gehenna ;  while  Dr.  Campbell 
says,  that  Hades  is  to  be  destroyed,  and  that  afterwards  Ge- 
henna, the  hell  in  which  the  wicked  will  for  ever  be  punished, 
is  to  be  provided.  Indeed,  in  one  sense,  this  is  true;  and  this 
subject  would  deserve  no  notice,  were  it  not  for  the  trium- 
phant tone  in  which  Dr.  Campbell  is  quoted  ;  and  for  the 
misinterpretation  which,  as  we  think,  he  and  numerous  other 
very  learned  men  have  given  to  Rev.  xx.  14.  The  Apostle 
there  declares,  that,  in  the  day  of  judgment,  death  and  hell 
will  be  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire,  which  is  the  second  death. 
This,  Dr.  Campbell  thinks,  means  merely  that  the  separate 
slate  of  souls  and  bodies  will  no  longer  continue;  for  while 
the  righteous,  in  soul  and  body,  are  taken  up  to  heaven,  the 
wicked,  in  soul  and  body,  will  be  cast  into  Gehenna. 

We  think,  however,  that  the  above  passage  means,  that, 
after  the  day  of  judgment^  our  earth  and  atmosphere  will  sud- 
denly he  converted  Mo  that  Gehenna,  that  lake  of  fire  and 
brimstone,  in  which  the  wicked,  together  with  the  devil  and  his 
angels,  are  to  be  punished  for  ever.  We  reject  the  other 
meaning,  because,  as  far  as  we  can  discover,  it  is  a  mere  mat' 
ter  of  opinion,  not  supported  by  arguments.  The  opinions  of 
learned  men  are  of  weight,  where  nothing  but  authority  can 
be  brought  to  decide  the  point;  but  a  single  sound  argument 
sweeps  away  all  such  authoriti>2s.  Now  we  support  our  view 
by  the  following  arguments. 

1.  St.  John,  in  the  above  passage,  cannot  mean  the  aboli- 
tion of  death  and  of  the  intermediate  state  of  souls,  because 
this  would  contradict  his  ozon  explanation.  He  has  already 
said,  that,  in  the  day  of  judgment,  death  and  Hades  will  give 
up  the  dead  which  are  in  them.  By  death  here,  as  already 
remarked,  he  evidently  must  mean  the  regions  which  contain 
the  bodies  of  iht  dead,  the  region  of  graves,  or  the  surface  of 
the  earth ;  and  by  Hades  he  i7iust  mean  that  part  of  the  in- 
%'isible  world  where  departed  spirits  dwell,  between  death 
and  the  resurrection.  When,  therefore,  he  afterwards  says, 
that  death  and  Hades  are  cast  into  the  lake  which  burneth 
with  fire  and  brimstone,  this,  as  explained  by  the  Apostle  him- 


132  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

self,  must  mean,  that  the  surface  of  the  earth,  and  the  invisible 
world,  or  place  of  departed  spirits,  are  cast  into  the  lake  which 
burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone.  But  if  death  and  Hades  have 
this  meaning,  then  their  being  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire  and 
brimstone  must  mean,  as  we  conceive,  their  being  suddenly^ 
and  with  tremendous  power,  changed  into  that  place  of  punish- 
ment which  God  has  prepared  for  wicked  men  and  wicked 
spirits.  And  this  interpretation,  be  it  observed,  stands  not 
upon  the  authority  of  human  opinion,  but  upon  the  authority 
of  revelation  :  it  is  the  Apostle's  own  interpretation. 

2.  That  Hades,  the  invisible  world,  or  world  of  spirits, 
means  the  regions  of  air  which  surround  the  earth,  appears 
from  the  following  considerations.  The  future  hell  of  the 
wicked  is  the  same  with  the  lake  of  fire  and  brimstone,  all 
the  parts  of  which  lie  close  together,  and  are  connected  into 
one  vast  whole.  But  the  preceding  argument  shows,  that  the 
surface  of  the  earth  forms  one  part  of  this  hell :  the  Hades,  or 
invisible  regions,  or  world  of  spirits,  therefore,  that  form  the 
other  part,  must  necessarily  mean  the  regions  of  air  which 
closely  invest,  and  are  immediately  connected  with  tlie  earth. 
Again ;  St.  Paul  declares,j  that  evil  angels  have  their  resi- 
dence in  our  atmosphere ;  and  if,  as  Scripture  says,  they 
tempt  us,  and  go  about  seeking  whom  they  may  devour,  they 
must  necessarily  be  near  us  and  around  us.  St.  Peter  and 
St.  Jude  inform  us,''  that  these  same  angels  are  now  in  Tar- 
tarus,  the  real  hell  of  Hades,  or  the  world  of  spirits ;  and  are 
there  in  chains  of  darkness,  reserved  unto  the  great  day  of 
judgment.  Hence  it  necessarily  follows  that  our  atmosphere 
is  the  Hades,  the  world  of  spirits,  where  the  fallen  angels  and 
the  souls  of  the  wicked  are  preserved  till  the  day  of  judg- 
ment.* 

J  Eph.  ii.  2,  and  vi.  11. 

fe  2  Pet.  ii.  4 ;  Jude  6.    See  Macknight  on  these  passages. 

•  We  do  not  mean  to  say  that  our  atmosphere  forms  the  whole  of  that 
region  which  in  Scripture  is  called  Sheol  ^nd  Hades.  Both  Scripture  and 
ancient  profane  authorsf  represent  this  region  as  comprising  our  atmo« 

t  See  Job  xi. ;  Psa.  cxxxis.  8;  2  Pet.  ii.;  Whitby  and  MacIcnJght  on  this  last  text;  an^ 
f^aiiipbeirs  Disjertatioiu. 


Modern  Universalism*  133 

3.  To  illustrate  still  further  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  future 
punishment,  we  proceed  to  remark  :  in  all  ages  of  the  world, 
and  among  all  nations,  the  place  of  future  punishment  for  the 
wicked  has  been  supposed  to  be  on  the  surface  of  the  earth, 
beneath  its  surface,  or  in  the  atmosphere.     It  seems  but  na- 
tural and  reasonable  to  suppose,  that  the  wicked  would  be 
judged,  condemned,  and  punished  in  that  very  section  of  Je- 
hovah's  empire  where   their  crimes  had   been  committed. 
Among  all  nations,  from  the  earliest  times,  there  has  been  a 
traditionary  behef  that  our  earth  would,  in  the  day  of  judg- 
ment, be  destroyed  by  a  deluge  of  fire — a  belief  embraced 
even  by  almost  all  the  ancient  sects  of  philosophers.     This 
universal  belief  in  the  final  destruction  of  the  world  by  fire, 
which  cannot  be  accounted  for  except  by  ascribing  it  to  ante- 
diluvian revelations,  is  countenanced  by  the  nature  of  our 
earth  and  atmosphere.     They  both  consist  of  such  materials, 
that  God  could,  with  infinite  ease,  turn  the  whole  atmosphere 
that  surrounds  the  globe  into  one  vast  and  frightful  sea  of 
liquid  fire,  which  would  reduce  every  thing  upon  its  surface 
to  ashes,  and  communicating  with  the  brimstone  and  other 
combustible  materials  of  which  its  crust  is  composed,  literally 
turn  our  globe  into  a  hell  of  fire  and  brimstone.    Finally,  the 
word  of  God  assures  us  that  all  mankind,  and  the  fallen  angels 
themselves,  will  be  judged  upon  our  earth  ;  and  that  the  righte- 
ous will  be  caught  up  from  the  earth  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the 
air,  and  afterwards  ascend  with  him  to  heaven.     And  since 
the  wicked  are  left  behind  upon  the  surface  of  the  earth,  and 
there  receive  their  awful  sentence  of  condemnation,  we  must 
necessarily  infer  that  there  likewise  they  receive  their  punish- 
ment—wicked spirits  in  the  air,  and  embodied  souls  on  the 
surface  of  the  ground. 

Under  this  view  of  the  subject,  though  the  fnat  hell  is  not 

sphere,  and  extending  downwards  from  the  surface  of  the  earth,  far  into 
the  regions  below.  These  regions  below  are  a  part  of  the  invisible  world; 
and  they,  together  with  the  crust  of  the  earth  and  the  atmosphere,  will 
constitute  the  whole  of  that  Gehenna,  the  fires  of  which  will  burn  to  the 
lowest  helU  (Sheol.) 

t  Deut.  xssii.  23> 


134  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

yet  fulJy  prepared,  yet  the  place  and  materials  for  it  are 
ready — it  will  be  time  enough,  if  provided  in  the  day  of  judg- 
ment ;  and  the  breath  of  the  Lord,  like  a  stream  of  brim- 
stone, can  then  kindle  it  in  one  instant.^  Upon  this  supposi- 
tion, the  fires  of  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  and  the  tire  and  brim- 
stone by  which  Sodom  was  destroyed  and  turned  into  a  lake, 
would  literally  hQ  forerunners,  pledges,  and  types,,  of  that  lake 
of  real  fire  and  brimstone,  in  which  wicked  men  and  angels 
are  to  receive  their  everlasting  portion. 

Some  are  here  no  doubt  ready  to  cavil  and  object ;  but  we 
have  already  extended  these  remarks  so  much  beyond  our 
original  intention,  that  we  shall  not  open  our  ears  to  their 
objections.  Suffice  it  to  observe,  that,  for  all  we  know,  the 
fallen  angels  may  have  bodies  capable  of  receiving  pain  from 
fire — that  if  wicked  men  are  raised  with  immortal  bodies, 
they  still  may  be  susceptible  of  suffering  in  them — and  that  if 
they  are  raised  in  the  same  corruptible  bodies  they  now  wear, 
those  bodies  may  be  burnt  up  in  the  fires  of  the  judgment- 
day,  and  they  may  thus  literally  experience  what  the  Apostle 
calls  the  second  death,  or  second  dissolution  of  soul  and  body; 
while  their  disembodied  spirits  are  left  behind,  to  endure  the 
endless  punishment  of  remorse  and  hopeless  ruin.  It  is  here, 
however,  of  importance  to  add  :  the  main  body  of  the  Jews, 
and  all  the  primitive  Christians  universally,  believed  and 
taught  that  the  wicked  would  hereafter  be  punished  literally 
and  truly  with  fire  and  brimstone.  If  this  is  not  the  doctrine 
of  Scripture,  how  will  you  account  for  this  firm,  full,  &nd  uni- 
versal behef  of  the  primitive  Christians  ?  Would  our  Saviour, 
the  Apostles,  and  other  inspired  teachers,  either  inculcate  a 
false  doctrine,  or  sufier  their  hearers  and  followers  to  conti- 
nue in  the  belief  of  this  false  doctrine  ?  No,  surely,  this  can- 
not possibly  be ;  and  we  must  therefore  infer,  that  this  is  the 
doctrine  of  Scripture.'^ 

4.  The  language  of  Scripture,  as  we  think,  clearly  proves 
this  doctrine  \  nor,  in  our  opinion,  can  that  language  be  con' 

1  Isa.  XXX.  33. 

«n  See  Stackhouse's  Body  of  Divinity,  Bishop  Bull's  Sermons,  and  King 
on  the  Creed. 


Modern  Universalism.  135 

sistently  interpreted  upon  any  other  supposition.  Let  us  hear 
this  language.  Our  Saviour  declares,"  that  the  wicked  shall 
go  away  into  everlasting  Jire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his 
angels — that  as  tares  are  burnt  in  the  fire,  so  shall  it  be  at  the 
end  of  the  world — the  wicked  shall  be  cast  into  a  furnace  of 
fire,  where  shall  be  wailing  and  gnashing  of  teeth — and  that  it 
is  better  to  deny  ourselves  now,  be  it  ever  so  much,  than  to 
be  cast  into  hell  fire,  where  the  worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire 
is  not  quenched.  Again  St.  Paul  delares,°  that  in  the  day  of 
judgment,  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  descend  from  heaven,  to  take 
"oengtance,  with  Jiaming  Jire,  on  them  that  know  not  God,  and 
obey  not  the  Gospel.  St.  Peter  assures  us,p  that  the  heavens^ 
or  atmosphere,  and  the  earth  which  are  nozu^  are  reserved  unto 
Jire,  against  the  day  of  judgment  and  perdition  of  ungodly 
men  /  when  the  earth  and  the  works  which  are  therein  shall  be 
burnt  up.  In  fine,  St.  John  teaches,«j  that  in  the  day  of  judg- 
ment wicked  men  and  devils  shall  be  cast  into  the  lake  of  Jire 
and  brimstone,  where  they  shall  be  tormented  for  ever  and  ever. 
O  it  is  a  fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  living 
God  !  Truly  God  is  a  consuming  fire  to  the  wicked  !  O  that 
sinners  were  wise — that  they  understood  this — that  they  would 
consider  their  latter  end  !  God  of  grace,  let  these  terrors  of 
the  Lord  persuade  every  impenitent  reader!  Father  of  mer- 
cies, let  thy  convincing  Spirit  prick  them  to  the  heart,  and 
pluck  them  as  brands  from  the  burning !  Awake,  thou  that 
sleepest,  and  arise  from  the  death  of  sin,  ere  the  fires  of  the 
judgment-day  overwhelm  thee ! 

We  have  thus,  we  trust,  sufficiently  shown  that  Hades  will, 
in  the  day  of  judgment,  form  a  pan  of  Gehenna,  or  the  hell 
where  the  wicked  will  for  ever  be  punished  ;  and  thaf  part  of 
their  punishment  will  consist  in  the  sufierings  inflicted  uoon 
the  body  by  real  fire.  Be  this  however  as  it  may,  which,  way 
soever  it  be  decided,  it  does  not  affect  the  question  in  dispute 
between  orthodox  Christians  and  Universalisis.     In  order  to 

»  Matt.  XXV.  and  xiii-;  and  Mark  is.  o  2  Thess.  i. 

P  2  Pet.  jii,  q  Rev.  xx.    See  Macknlght  on  these  pas-sag-es. 


1 3G  Remarks  on  tJie  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

present  the  reader  with  the  whole  truth,  it  was  necessary  to 
exhibit  the  subject  of  future  punishment  at  JuU  length,  ac- 
cording to  the  word  of  God.  But  apart  from  this,  in  answer 
to  Universahsts,  we  have  fully  proved,  that  the  words  hell 
and  everlasting  are  used  in  Scripture  in  the  very  sense  in 
which  the  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  and  Christians  in  general, 
familiarly  and  habitually  use  them — that  the  reasoning  of 
Universalists  from  the  words  aionios,  Sheol,  Hades,  and  Ge- 
henna, is  groundless  and  false  reasoning — that  their  interpre- 
tation of  Scripture  is  therefore  false — and  that  their  whole 
system  of  religion,  resting  on  this  and  similar  foundations,  is 
an  unsupported  system  of  the  most  dangerous  and  baleful  er- 
rors. These  things  we  have  proved  by  two  distinct  series  of 
arguments  ,•  and  we  might  now  proceed  to  show,  by  a  third 
argument,  that  the  Universalist  interpretation  of  the  words 
aionios,  Sheol,  Hades,  and  Gehenna,  cannot  possibly  be  truCf 
but  must  necessarily  be  false.  We  think  it  unnecessary,  how- 
ever, to  enlarge  ;  and  therefore  only  add  the  following.  It  is 
a  fact,  proved  by  the  writings  of  the  primitive  Christians, 
that  they  universally  interpreted  the  above  mentioned  words, 
and  the  passages  of  Scripture  in  which  they  are  found,  pre- 
cisely in  the  same  way  that  we  have  interpreted  them  in  the 
preceding  remarks.  But  we  have  already  proved,  that,  upon 
so  important  a  point,  these  early  Christians  could  not  possibly 
have  been  mistaken,  or  permitted  to  continue  in  error.  It 
therefore  follows,  that  their  interpretation  is  necessarily  right, 
and  that  the  interpretation  of  the  Universalist  must  necessa- 
rily be  wrong,  and  contrary  to  Scripture, 

We  have  thus  then  proved,  by  unanswerable  arguments, 
that  (he  reasoning  of  the  Universalist  is  false  reasoning — that 
in  his  reasonings  he  is  governed  by  principles  which  necessa- 
rily lead  to  error,  and  nothing  but  error— that  he  takes  for 
granted  the  very  things  which  he  ought  to  prove,  and  thus 
begs  the  quesJtion  from  beginning  to  end — that  almost  his 
whole  argument  is  negative,  and  proves  nothing  against  the 
doctrine  of  endless  future  punishment — and  that  this  doctrine 
is  unanswerably  proved  by  various  passages  of  Scripture  which 
the  Universahst  has  not  taken  into  the  account.    We  have 


Modern  Universalism,  137 

proved  too,  by  unanswerable  arguments,  that  the  leading  doc- 
trine of  the  new  Universalism  cannot  possibly  be  frue,  but  must 
necessarily  be  false  ;  because  it  is  contrary  to  the  belief  of 
all  mankind,  and  leads  to  the  most  dangerous  consequences — 
because  it  is  contrary  to  the  faith  of  the  primitive  Christians, 
and  was  by  them  universally  condemned  as  a  heresy,  the  off- 
spring of  Satan— and  lastly,  because  it  directly  contradicts 
the  revealed  word  of  God. 

Besides  the  main  doctrine  of  the  Universalist,  which  we 
have  thus  proved  to  be  false,  they  hold  many  other  opinions 
most  grievously  erroneous :  and  they  advance  many  other 
objections,  besides  those  on  which  we  have  remarked.  These, 
however,  we  shall  not  notice,  because  the  task  would  be  end- 
less ;  for  Universalism,  through  the  influence  of  its  leading 
doctrine,  has  disfigured  and  polluted  every  portion  of  sacred 
writ  with  its  harpy  touch  ;  and  because,  by  demonstrating  its 
leading  doctrine  to  be  false,  we  have  drawn  out  its  life-blood, 
and  laid  the  whole  system  in  ruins.  One  more  of  their  errors 
we  had  indeed  intended  to  notice — their  denial  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity,  and  of  the  supreme  divinity  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ :  for  in  this  they  perfectly  correspond  with  what 
St.  Peter  prophecied"" — There  shall  be  false  teachers  among 
you,  who  privily  shall  bring  in  damnable  heresies,  even  dent/- 
mg  the  Lord  that  bought  them.  But  to  this  point  we  cannot 
do  justice,  without  unduly  extending  our  remarks.  From  what 
we  already  have  said  of  the  main  doctrine  of  Universalism, 
let  the  reader  judge  what  credit  is  due  to  this  Unitarian  he- 
resy, which  denies  the  divinity  of  the  Saviour.  As  the  system 
is  rotten  to  its  core,  he  must  be  credulous  and  inconsistent 
indeed,  who  should  disbelieve  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
because  Universalism  had  beslavered  it  with  its  venom.  !f, 
in  the  course  of  Divine  Providence,,  we  feel  ourselves  called 
to  it,  we  hesitate  not  to  ajffirm,  that  the  supreme  divinity  of 
Christ  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  may,  as  it  has  already 
often  been,  be  demonstrated  by  arguments  as  conclusive  and 
nnanszuerable  as  those  by  which,   in  the   preceding  remarks, 

r  2  Pet.  ii,  1, 

1  u 


138  Remarks  on  the  distinguishing  Doctrine  of 

we  have  demonstrated  the  doctrine  of  endless  future  punish' 
ment. 

Throughout  the  whole  of  our  remarks  it  has  been  our  ob- 
ject to  reduce  our  argument,  as  nearly  as  possible,  to  a  ma- 
thematical demonstration.  The  whole  of  it  has  indeed  been 
hastily,  and  part  of  it  carelessly  drawn  up ;  but  we  are  per- 
fectly satisfied  that  we  have  sustained  our  main  point,  by 
overwhelming  arguments.  Sophistry  may  carp  at  them,  but 
they  can  never  be  answered — they  can  never  be  overturned— 
any  more  than  Hume,  by  his  sophistry,  could  prove  that  there 
is  no  real  sun  in  the  heavens,  and  no  real  earth  beneath  our 
feet.  It  i«  physically  impossible  to  prove  that  Universalism 
is  agreeable  to  Scripture :  as  well  might  darkness  be  proved 
to  be  light.  We  would  therefore  now,  in  conclusion,  most 
earnestly  and  importunately  address  those  who  have  been 
unfortunate  enough  to  embrace  the  errors  of  Universalism. 
The  leading  error  in  this  sj'sffim  is  one  of  the  happiest  sug- 
gestions of  the  devil,  and  most  admirably  calculated  to  pro- 
mote the  purpose.?  of  the  great  destroyer  of  souls.  We  would 
therefore,  if  possible,  make  every  Universalist  stand  aghast 
and  horror-stricken  at  his  own  system ;  and  we  would  affec- 
tionately urge  him  to  abandon  it  with  precipitation  and  ab- 
horrence ;  and  to  warn  all  whom  he  meets,  to  avoid  it  and 
flee  from  it,  as  though  it  were  the  bottomless  pit.  O,  as  you 
value  your  immortal  interests,  delay  not !  Examine  the 
ground  on  which  you  stand,  and  escape  from  Sodom  to  Zoar. 
Remember,  if  even  Universalism  be  true,  you  are  eqtially 
safe  though  you  disbelieve  it ;  but  if  it  be  false,  as  it  has  been 
proved  to  be — and  if  you  yield  to  its  influence  upon  your 
heart  and  life,  as  all  will  naturally  be  inclined,  and  as  many 
have  already  been  known*  to  do — you  will  ruin  yourself,  soul 
and  body,  for  ever !  If  this  system  of  doctrine  then  appear 
plausible  to  you,  it  is  only  because  you  fancy  or  wish  it  to  be 
true  ;  and  not  because  there  is  any  evidence  of  its  truth.  Do 
not  then  deceive  yourself,  we  beseech  you.     Awake  from 

s  See  Emmons  on  UnirerBalism,  and  Chauncey  the  Universalist,  as  quetwS 
By  him. 


Modern  Universalism»  139 

your  reveries  and  your  false  security,  and  attend  to  the  things 
which  belong  to  your  everlasting  peace,  before  death  closes 
the  door  of  mercy  and  seals  your  doom  for  ever!  Rely  upon 
it,  eternal  rewards  and  punishments  are  substantial  realities, 
whether  you  believe  them  to  be  so  or  not.  By  shutting  your 
«yes  against  them,  your  danger  is  not  in  the  least  lessened, 
but  greatly  increased^  The  period  is  approaching,  when  you 
must  be  thoroughly  awakened  from  your  delusive  dreaips. 
The  solemn  scenes  of  eternity  will  draw  the  curtain  aside, 
and  open  upon  your  astonished  minds  those  awful  realities 
which  nnade  Felix  and  Belshazzar  tremble ;  and  which  will 
more  terribly  shock  the  «oul8  of  the  guilty,  when  truth  can  no 
longer  be  resisted,  and  when  the  fires  of  the  judgment- day 
will  carry  €o«viction  to  the  heart  of  every  incorrigible  impe- 
nitent To-day,  therefore,  while  it  is  called  to-day,  harden 
not  your  heart ;  but  credit  and  obey  that  divine  declaration 
and  precept — "  F^ar  God  and  keep  his  commandments :  for 
**  this  is  the  whole  duty  <yf  man.  For  God  shall  bring  every 
**  work  into  judgment^  with  every  secret  ihingy  whether  it  be 
"  good,  or  whether  it  be  emZ." 


ERRATA. 

i'tige  9,  fourth  line  from  bottom,  read  -zokence  instead  of  where 
Page  43,  seventeenth  line  from  top,  read  hoUiiess  instead  of  knowledo-e 
Page  94  3d  sec.  1st  line  insert  mentioned,  between  above  and  reasoning.  ' 
Page  115,  2d  line  from  top,  read  Jacob  instead  of  Abraham . 
Page  118,  2d  line  intended,  instead  of  interpreted. 

Page  127,  seventeeth  line  from  top,  insert /»o/>«;ar  between  them  and  si^nu 
jication,  ^ 


THE   ENp. 


iilliiii 


